Is Global Warming a Swindle?

In summary: The climate scientists seem quite convinced, and that's good enough for me.The arguments in the film are mainly comprised of ad hominems directed at the environmental movement and of long-discredited notions.The biggest problem with the film is that all but one of the "scientists" presented in the field are not climatologists. To anyone who thinks that their arguments hold water, I issue a challenge: find one paper in a peer-reviewed journal in the last five years which disputes anthropogenic global warming. If there really is a debate in the climatology community, then it shouldn't be too hard, right?In summary, the film "The Great Global
  • #36
Art said:
Perhaps from the knowledge you gleaned at these lectures you might be able to throw some light on the following?
Art, if you're asking someone to examine a list of "results" and explain them, the very least you can do is include references to the original sources. Else, this is becomes your typical Creationist, out-of-thin-air type of shopping list.

For instance, you claim that the teperature data that the UN uses is flawed...
The temperatures the UN uses to calculate average global temperatures are obtained from readings taken near expanding towns and cities which makes the data victim to the heat island effect which is potentially serious as it is possible that the Earth is actually cooling not warming.
...yet, when you make statements such as
The current average temperature rise of .13 C per decade is the same now as it was in 1910 when reliable records began.
...you provide no means for your audience to make a determination of whether or not this data too may be flawed or otherwise meaningless. I could counter with a "there's been a 0.3C increase in temperature over the last decade (over twice your "average" value) so your claim is bogus" response. But, strictly speaking, I can neither refute nor support your claim because it is written in loose, imprecise language that could be taken to mean anything one wants.

Were you being serious in your request to shed "some light" on your talking points, you should have at least provided the possibility to do so.

PS: @ Stu & Pyth - please keep the parallel discussion to private messages.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
Art, if you're asking someone to examine a list of "results" and explain them, the very least you can do is include references to the original sources.
Good point Gokul, and my fault for not requesting that. I've read these studies so many times, I tend to fill in the blanks. A lot of these reports are in the Earth Forum, I can't do it now, can dig some up later though.

Art, if you have the links to the studies, please provide them.

I think a more serious concern is that Hell must be freezing over because I find myself agreeing with something Art said.
 
  • #38
Here are some alternate links to watch the film:


http://www.veoh.com/videos/v291101Y8Pqys52
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831


These are taken from Luboš Motl's blog's post and review of the movie
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html

Download on BitTorrent (near-perfect quality)
http://thepiratebay.org/search/great global warming swindle/0/0/0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
I found it interesting that yesterday in the Congressional meeting, Inhofe was incapable of engaging in a reasonable debate with Gore. He didn't want answers. He only wanted to slay Gore with questions. Boxer had to intervene and point out that Inhofe doesn't make the rules.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
Can anybody post links to transcript, audio, or video to what happened after Gore's testimony?
 
  • #42
Hopefully there aren't too many who take Inhofe seriously. Especially on scientific matters.
 
  • #43
Mk said:
Can anybody post links to transcript, audio, or video to what happened after Gore's testimony?

I was looking but didn't find any online yet except for one site that requires membership and/or money.
 
  • #44
StuMyers said:
Hopefully there aren't too many who take Inhofe seriously. Especially on scientific matters.

He certainly didn't help his cause any. To me he came off like a total fanatic.
 
  • #45
He is a total fanatic. He once gave a senate speech claiming that American Israel policy should be based on a literal reading of the bible.:smile:
 
  • #46
This maybe it.

AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7rmajxxnc

I am not too crazy about having Al Gore as spokesperson for GW or environment.

What I would like to see is a national 'town meeting' which is not controlled by media or political interests.

It appears to me that there is something to the GW issue. We are certainly seeing unusually warm weather where I am - but it could be a transient event.

While there seems to be circumstantial evidence concerning GW, there are still lots of questions and maybe some apparent contradictions.

And what if the diagnosis is wrong? We go down one path to a solution, which turns out not to work - and at what cost?

I sitting on the fence as for the cause of GW, but I am pro-environment, pro-conservation, and pro-sustainable economics - and I wish people would keep politics out of the scientific process.
 
  • #47
I think it's important to keep your eye on the fact that you don't want to try and stop GW just for the sake of stopping GW. You want to stop it for the economic benefits of, say, not displacing X number of inhabitants. If I thought we could raise global wealth and prosperity quickly enough, I'd argue against trying to stop it myself.

Plus, you want to keep your eye on the mechanics of wealth creation on the first place. If society 'wants' greener technology, it can sell it to itself and build wealth just as surely as it can with anything else.
 
  • #48
Baby seal pups are taking a hit. oops poor chice of words.

Washington - Global warming is making it harder for newborn harp seals to survive in the Gulf of St Lawrence and off Newfoundland in Canada, the International Fund for Animal Welfare reported on Friday.

Rising temperatures have dramatically reduced the ice covering the water in these two areas, both places where harp seals return annually to mate and give birth, the advocacy group said in a scientific report.

In nine of the last 11 years, ice coverage has been well below the average noted over the last 37 years, the report said.

Solid ice is necessary for the survival of harp seal pups, said Sheryl Fink, a wildlife biologist and co-author of the report.

"Harp seals need the ice to give birth to their pups - they won't come onto land," Fink said in a telephone interview.

They need a solid stable ice platform for three or four weeks, in order to give birth and to allow the pups to nurse enough to build up strength.

"If the ice isn't there when the mother seals are ready to give birth, they are forced to abort the pups in the water," she said. "They drown instantly. If there is ice but not as solid as necessary, so that it doesn't hold out for the entire nursing period ... (the pups) will fall into the water and drown."
 
  • #49
Astronuc said:
This maybe it.

AL GORE: Global Warming Testimony @ Congress 3.21.07
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Yo7rmajxxnc

I am not too crazy about having Al Gore as spokesperson for GW or environment.

What I would like to see is a national 'town meeting' which is not controlled by media or political interests.

It appears to me that there is something to the GW issue. We are certainly seeing unusually warm weather where I am - but it could be a transient event.

While there seems to be circumstantial evidence concerning GW, there are still lots of questions and maybe some apparent contradictions.

And what if the diagnosis is wrong? We go down one path to a solution, which turns out not to work - and at what cost?

I sitting on the fence as for the cause of GW, but I am pro-environment, pro-conservation, and pro-sustainable economics - and I wish people would keep politics out of the scientific process.
My sentiments exactly. What we're seeing is a bunch of politicians jumping on the bandwagon since they think it will make them more popular, and we're seeing some "scientists" riding their coat tails for notoriety. It's not easy being the scientist that says, wait, what about all these studies that disagree with what you're saying?

"But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

''I don't want to pick on Al Gore,'' Don J. Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. ''But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data.''

<snip> "While reviewers tended to praise the book and movie, vocal skeptics of global warming protested almost immediately. Richard S. Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who has long expressed skepticism about dire climate predictions, accused Mr. Gore in The Wall Street Journal of ''shrill alarmism.''

<snip> "''Hardly a week goes by,'' Dr. Peiser said, ''without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,'' including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

''Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,'' Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. ''Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.''

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore's claim that ''our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this'' threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to ''20 times greater than the warming in the past century.''

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore's assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. ''I've never been paid a nickel by an oil company,'' Dr. Easterbrook told the group. ''And I'm not a Republican.''

Biologists, too, have gotten into the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming's effects and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as spreading malaria.

''For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims,'' Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald Tribune. ''We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they continue to ignore the facts.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...=Top/Reference/Times Topics/People/G/Gore, Al

The article does give him credit for the effort he's expending, however misguided that may turn out to be. People say "well, it can't hurt to do something. If it's the wrong thing, yes it can hurt.

While not everything Gore says is completely wrong, too much of it is wrong. We honestly just don't know enough about what is happening.
 
  • #50
Gokul43201 said:
Art, if you're asking someone to examine a list of "results" and explain them, the very least you can do is include references to the original sources. Else, this is becomes your typical Creationist, out-of-thin-air type of shopping list. .
Actualy I didn't ask, StuMyers offered and I accepted whereupon he withdrew his offer.

Gokul43201 said:
For instance, you claim that the teperature data that the UN uses is flawed... ...yet, when you make statements such as ...you provide no means for your audience to make a determination of whether or not this data too may be flawed or otherwise meaningless. I could counter with a "there's been a 0.3C increase in temperature over the last decade (over twice your "average" value) so your claim is bogus" response. But, strictly speaking, I can neither refute nor support your claim because it is written in loose, imprecise language that could be taken to mean anything one wants.

Were you being serious in your request to shed "some light" on your talking points, you should have at least provided the possibility to do so.
It's slightly ironic that whilst berating me for not supplying references for the figures I supplied you then proceed to do the same yourself :-p

The reason I didn't bother with detailed sources is because this is the political forum and my main point was that a lot of the hype around GW is being driven by a political agenda. My 'list' was simply to demonstrate the debate is far from over.

But to satisfy your request most of the points I raised can be found here http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=886 and here [/url] http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf [/URL] and of course the IPCC's own reports.

BTW The latest IPCC report refers to a temperature rise of .03 C between 2001 and 2007. Where did you get your figure of .3 C for the past decade?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?
 
  • #52
Mallignamius said:
As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?
It would be nice if more people would embrace this approach. I care about whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, but the question does not play into my dedication to reducing my impact on contamination/pollution. Maine is an exporter of electricity, most of which is produced by hydro power. That does not allow me the luxury of wasting electricity so that some coal-fired plant in Ohio will take up the slack and pollute my air with ozones and my fishing waters with acids and heavy metals.
 
  • #53
Mallignamius said:
As to whether or not global warming is anthropogenic seems ultimately irrelevant to me. If it is pollution that is causing global warming, then the pollution needs to be capped for the obvious reason. If it is not anthropogenic, pollution should still be capped for being a waste of a resource and destructive to our environment and animals. The less waste, the better. Isn't that the best way to approach the issue?

What you're saying makes sense, but the argument is that global warming is caused by something that isn't even a pollutant - carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous, it does not cause acid rain, it is required for plants to survive, and you are releasing CO2 as you read this.

Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true, it's getting too much attention. Earth's temperature increasing less than 1 degree C over 100 years, reaching temperatures that the Earth has historically reached (Medieval Warm Period), is not a big deal, yet global warming is all we hear about. Contrast that with something that is a big deal, such as arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and India. This truly is an environmental problem, and you've probably never heard of it.
You can probably guess which one I think is a bigger priority.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
turbo-1 said:
That does not allow me the luxury of wasting electricity so that some coal-fired plant in Ohio will take up the slack and pollute my air with ozones and my fishing waters with acids and heavy metals.

Ozone is not a pollutant. In fact, ozone is probably the only reason you do not get skin cancer after spending a few hours in the sun every day during summer. Ozone blocks all UV-C rays and most UV-B rays.

Ozone is also a popular way of sanitizing things and removing smells. Putting ozone in water kills most bacteria because it's similar to using hydrogen peroxide, and that same radical reaction mechanism can be used to destroy organic molecules that cause odor. You know that "ozone smell" the http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview/sku__SI724GRY creates? That really is ozone, and it's generally not poisonous because ozone has a very short life span when it's in ground-level air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
ShawnD said:
Ozone is not a pollutant. In fact, ozone is probably the only reason you do not get skin cancer after spending a few hours in the sun every day during summer. Ozone blocks all UV-C rays and most UV-B rays.

Ozone is also a popular way of sanitizing things and removing smells. Putting ozone in water kills most bacteria because it's similar to using hydrogen peroxide, and that same radical reaction mechanism can be used to destroy organic molecules that cause odor. You know that "ozone smell" the http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview/sku__SI724GRY creates? That really is ozone, and it's generally not poisonous because ozone has a very short life span when it's in ground-level air.
Ozone in high levels of the atmosphere can help protect us from UV. Ozone at lower elevations can cause health alerts for people with respiratory conditions, such as asthma. There is a BIG difference. My wife and I both have respiratory conditions that require caution, treatment, and medication, and our location downstream from big midwest power plants is contributing factor.

Our state health services have issued very strong advisories against children and women eating fresh-waster fish due to mercury contamination, and they have issued a population-wide advisory against eating organ meats of moose and deer due to cadmium contamination. None of this has a tie-in with GW, but it is heavily dependent upon our government's suck-up attitude to the energy industry in which companies that pollute a lot in "XYZ" are allowed to buy or trade "pollution credits" with companies that pollute in "ABC", meaning that NONE of us living downwind or downstream of these creeps can ever hope for relief.

BTW: Laser printers have traps to disassociate the ozone that they produce in order to reduce the concentration of ozone in the workplace. Do you think that the manufacturers engineered this in for free because it was easy to do, or perhaps is ozone recognized as a hazard to respiratory health? The fact that Ion Breeze or some other manufacturer is producing ozone generators is not proof or even slightly convincing evidence that elevated levels of ozone in our homes and offices is healthy. We humans are built to breathe clean air and we perform best when we eat a mix of nutritious foods, and get regular exercise. Forcing us to exist in unnatural concentrations of contaminants is a key to our deaths.

If you want to propose that ozone is not a pollutant, I suggest that you cite some scientific evidence that it is not. Certainly the department of health in Maine is in stark disagreement with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
ShawnD said:
What you're saying makes sense, but the argument is that global warming is caused by something that isn't even a pollutant - carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide is not poisonous, it does not cause acid rain, it is required for plants to survive, and you are releasing CO2 as you read this.

Regardless of whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true, it's getting too much attention. Earth's temperature increasing less than 1 degree C over 100 years, reaching temperatures that the Earth has historically reached (Medieval Warm Period), is not a big deal, yet global warming is all we hear about. Contrast that with something that is a big deal, such as arsenic poisoning in Bangladesh and India. This truly is an environmental problem, and you've probably never heard of it.
You can probably guess which one I think is a bigger priority.
I can agree that it's not a pollutant by definition, but as a damaging excess I think it can be included in the list of necessary changes to how we go about our lives. That it is not a pollutant is then also irrelevant. The excessive discharge/creation is. So the amount of CO2 released should be capped. (This is assuming, out of my own ignorance, that CO2 presence is unnecessarily excessive.)

I don't understand how making a contrast with another problem is useful here. Admittedly, there are probably many thousands of problems I am unaware of. Pollution and excessive discharges, especially those being suspect causes of problems, are no less a concern. I suppose the contrast might help prioritize our efforts, but I doubt pollution/excess discarges should be low on our list of concerns.
 
  • #57
Mallignamius said:
I can agree that it's not a pollutant by definition, but as a damaging excess I think it can be included in the list of necessary changes to how we go about our lives. That it is not a pollutant is then also irrelevant. The excessive discharge/creation is. So the amount of CO2 released should be capped. (This is assuming, out of my own ignorance, that CO2 presence is unnecessarily excessive.)

I don't understand how making a contrast with another problem is useful here. Admittedly, there are probably many thousands of problems I am unaware of. Pollution and excessive discharges, especially those being suspect causes of problems, are no less a concern. I suppose the contrast might help prioritize our efforts, but I doubt pollution/excess discarges should be low on our list of concerns.
There are some otherwise intelligent-sounding but stupid people who say "CO2 is not a pollutant because it is essential for plant growth". What they will not admit is that they would not want to live in an enclosed environment with elevated CO2 levels in the air, nor would they want to be force-fed sub-lethal doses of water nor table salt every day. These people are liars. They want their families and themselves to live in nice, normal environments, but they don't mind ignoring the plights of people who cannot afford to relocate to get away from the polluters. Gutless, heartless creeps.
 
  • #58
turbo-1 said:
If you want to propose that ozone is not a pollutant, I suggest that you cite some scientific evidence that it is not. Certainly the department of health in Maine is in stark disagreement with you.

http://www.hospitalnews.com/modules/magazines/mag.asp?ID=3&IID=38&AID=416

Take your pick of any ones of the listed uses on Wiki

-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation



It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same :smile:

edit:
This is actually a lot like that debate about chlorine in water. Chlorine is not good for you, but chlorinated water is one of the greatest public health accomplishments we've ever had.
 
Last edited:
  • #59
ShawnD said:
http://www.hospitalnews.com/modules/magazines/mag.asp?ID=3&IID=38&AID=416

Take your pick of any ones of the listed uses on Wiki

-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation



It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same :smile:

It has beneficial uses, sure. But too much is not beneficial, is it?
 
  • #60
ShawnD said:
It's really a toss up. We either A) Deal with the health threats associated with ozone or B) Deal with the health threats associated with every form of bacteria, virus, and mold known to man. The hospital picks ozone. I choose the same :smile:
OK, now you tell me if you and your family want to breathe elevated levels of ozone every day. Maybe you and your loved ones would prefer to breathe high concentrations of chlorine gas, which is used for many of the same purposes. You can get real any time. Your arguments are transparent and specious.
 
  • #61
ShawnD said:
-disinfect laundry in hospitals, food factories, care homes etc
-disinfect water before it is bottled
-deodorize air and objects, such as after a fire
-kill bacteria on food or on contact surfaces
-scrub yeast and mold spores from the air in food processing plants (this also means it prevents Sick Building Syndrome)
-wash fresh fruits and vegetables to kill yeast, mold and bacteria
-chemically attack contaminants in water (iron, arsenic, hydrogen sulfide, nitrites, and complex organics lumped together as "color")
-hospital operating rooms where air needs to be sterile
-eradicate water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidiumin surface water treatment plants. This process is known as ozonation.
Yes - in closed systems. Ozone will damage or destroy lung tissue, and it is an irritant to eyes, nasal and throat tissue. I believe that ozone is decomposed before it is released to the air that people breath.
 
  • #62
Art said:
It's slightly ironic that whilst berating me for not supplying references for the figures I supplied you then proceed to do the same yourself :-p
...
BTW The latest IPCC report refers to a temperature rise of .03 C between 2001 and 2007. Where did you get your figure of .3 C for the past decade?
The irony was intended, but I guess you didn't get the point I was trying to make. I didn't get the 0.3C number from anywhere. I pulled it out of my hat. It was a part of the argument that I could simply throw a number back at you and claim I've debunked the assertion.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Gokul43201 said:
The irony was intended, but I guess you didn't get the point I was trying to make. I didn't get the 0.3C number from anywhere. I pulled it out of my hat. It was a part of the argument that I could simply throw a number back at you and claim I've debunked the assertion.
Ah, but the point you missed is I didn't just pluck numbers out of the air.

And for those who have gone off topic and are ranting on about pollution in general that is the whole point; whilst attention and resources are focused on the red-herring of CO2 production it isn't focusing on the things that really matter.

Spending billions on sequestering CO2 as is being proposed isn't going to reduce the true pollutants one iota. Personally I'd prefer to see this money spent where it would actually do some good.

Another danger of fear driven policy making is that suddenly the possibility of a massive proliferation of nuclear power plants is becoming close to becoming a reality with it's huge risk to the environment both through accidents and through the serious pollutants produced as an inherent part of the process.
 
  • #64
turbo-1 said:
OK, now you tell me if you and your family want to breathe elevated levels of ozone every day. Maybe you and your loved ones would prefer to breathe high concentrations of chlorine gas, which is used for many of the same purposes. You can get real any time. Your arguments are transparent and specious.

First you said coal power plants create ozone. Ozone is created by UV and high voltage sources (such as power lines connect to hydro-electric powerplants), and ozone is destroyed by almost any organic molecules in air (this is why you can't smell ozone from across the room, you need to put your nose right upagainst the air purifier or television screen).

Then you said ozone is a major health issue, even though it's used to clean the air in hospitals because ozone quickly removes itself by reacting with everything.

Then you said CO2 is a pollutant beacuse it may have negative health effects when you live in an enclosed area. What exactly does that mean? Where I live, Earth, people live in open systems that are exposed to the atmopshere. Unless your house is completely air tight, your air is roughly the same 0.05% carbon dioxide as my air. It's true that in offices the concentrations tend to be about double that, but complaints about stuffiness and poor air have more to do with a lack of oxygen than an abundance of CO2.
 
  • #65
Art said:
Actualy I didn't ask, StuMyers offered and I accepted whereupon he withdrew his offer.

Art, I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion, but I'm not really sure you're paying attention. For you to even mention Cambrian levels of carbon dioxide as one of your talking points tells me something about just how far even I would have to backtrack. Do you still think it's a reasonable talking point?

Anthropogenic GW is still in 'debate' in the same way evolution is still in debate. In other words, it's not. You can always scare up some contrarian arguments that seem reasonable to laymen, just as young-earth creats do, but the scientific debate as to whether or not, is over. The meaningful debate is now how much.
 
  • #66
StuMyers said:
Art, I'm willing to have a reasonable discussion, but I'm not really sure you're paying attention. For you to even mention Cambrian levels of carbon dioxide as one of your talking points tells me something about just how far even I would have to backtrack. Do you still think it's a reasonable talking point?

Anthropogenic GW is still in 'debate' in the same way evolution is still in debate. In other words, it's not. You can always scare up some contrarian arguments that seem reasonable to laymen, just as young-earth creats do, but the scientific debate as to whether or not, is over. The meaningful debate is now how much.
This is beginning to sound more and more like a litany than an honest attempt at debate :rolleyes:

Still let me ask you something. When Al Gore showed off his 'killer' graph supposedly showing the correlation between Earth's temperature and atmospheric CO2 over millions of years how many of you and your GW afficionados shouted it was irrelevant because of the time scales involved? You can't have it both ways! Either the historical record is relevant or it is not, so which is it?

Oh and how many of you rushed to point out that his graph actually debunked the anthropogenic effect as the data when presented accurately (which he didn't) clearly shows CO2 increases follow GW and NOT the other way round.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
I'm not paying attention to media interpretations of the data. I'm only listening to the climate scientists.

I'm aware the CO2 levels follow the initial temperature increases. Everyone does. Climate scientists don't think warming trends have been initially forced by CO2 within the present epoch. Last I read, the initial forcings were caused by milankovich cycles.
 
  • #68
StuMyers said:
I'm not paying attention to media interpretations of the data. I'm only listening to the climate scientists.

I'm aware the CO2 levels follow the initial temperature increases. Everyone does. Climate scientists don't think warming trends have been initially forced by CO2 within the present epoch. Last I read, the initial forcings were caused by milankovich cycles.
See now we are getting somewhere add in solar variation and suddenly CO2 begins to look like a very small player in the GW drama. Although climate scientists have belatedly started adding to some degree solar variation to their models, which incredibly they haven't in the past, they still do not model clouds in any detail as they are too 'complicated' even though water vapor by their own models is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Don't you think that's a little like performing an autopsy on a corpse and ignoring the bullet holes because they are complicated, whilst trying to determine the cause of death :biggrin:
 
  • #69
Astronuc said:
Yes - in closed systems. Ozone will damage or destroy lung tissue, and it is an irritant to eyes, nasal and throat tissue. I believe that ozone is decomposed before it is released to the air that people breath.

I remember driving the Los Angeles freeways in the 60's. At times my eyes burned until I could hardly see. It was common to see birds literally fall out of the sky when they flew over the freeways.

Ozone is fine in the right place, but not in your lungs.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Art said:
See now we are getting somewhere add in solar variation and suddenly CO2 begins to look like a very small player in the GW drama. Although climate scientists have belatedly started adding to some degree solar variation to their models, which incredibly they haven't in the past, they still do not model clouds in any detail as they are too 'complicated' even though water vapor by their own models is by far the biggest greenhouse gas.

Don't you think that's a little like performing an autopsy on a corpse and ignoring the bullet holes because they are complicated, whilst trying to determine the cause of death :biggrin:

I would think that if the core of the scientific community had thought water vapor and clouds were the key element, that is where they would have started.

Clouds and water vapor have always been in the atmosphere. What man has added has not. Those who blame it all on water vapor must also realize that the warmer the air gets the more water it will hold. if the resulting big billowing clouds will block enough sun, that would be great, but if not it will be too late to do anything significant.

Ice loss and ocean temperatures are a more practical predictor of global warming Those studies have already been done by NASA and the National Oceanographic Institute. What the temperature was in Buffalo last year compared to X number of years ago is not going to give an accurate prediction of the future until it gets so blasted warm it is obvious.

Statistics on ice loss and ocean temperatures do tend to support GW.

Burning fossil fuels spew out a lot more than just CO2.
The good part about limiting fossil fuel use to reduce green house gases, whether they are the cause of GW or not, is that it will lead us into a new era of clean energy. Gasoline was cleaner than horse manure, but it is time to move on.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Global Warming: Unraveling the Confusion
Replies
2
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top