Are you more skeptical of Global Warming--NOW?

Question

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

______________________________________

I should remind you--These are not fringe groups--but very highly credited Universities and institutes.

Answer 1

Not at all.

For starters this is an editorial in Internet Business Daily.  Why are they even discussing global warming in the first place?

Secondly, the article presents zero data.  It's just guys talking about climate change in the past and the present 11-year cycle.

None of them discuss the fact that solar activity has decreased over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated rapidly.  How can you possibly blame the Sun for the current warming as solar output has decreased?

The answer is that you can't.  No scientific study has attributed more than one-third of the recent warming to the Sun.  Not a single study.  And most attribute just 0-10% of the recent warming to the Sun.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

The quotation you provide ("try as we might...") comes from the Hoover Institution.  My reaction when I read that was "who the h**l is the Hoover Insitution?  Because I've never heard of it".  Apparently it's a think tank associated with Stanford University.

The Hoover Institution mission statement[1] expresses the basic tenets it stands for: representative government, private enterprise, peace, personal freedom, and the safeguards of the American system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Inst...

This is not a scientific institute - it's a political institute.  So why should I care about its conclusions with regards to global warming?  Especially when they directly contradict the conclusions of the scientific experts?

No, nothing about this article gave me any reason to be skeptical of man-made global warming.

Answer 2

"These are not fringe groups--but very highly credited Universities"

i don't think that the university wrote the paper or did the study.

but i wonder who did.  let's look.

oh, it's tim patterson.  and who might that be?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

"Patterson partcipated in the Kyoto's Fatal Flaws Revealed press conference, organized by Tom Harris of APCO Worldwide and held in Ottawa on November 13, 2002, along with other climate change sceptics including Fred Singer and Tim Ball."

singer and ball are famously unreliable.

more from sourcewatch,  <<Patterson is a member of the Science Advisory Board for Friends of Science and appeared in the FoS anti-Kyoto video entitled "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled". He is also a member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a Canadian non-profit group, including a number of leading climate change sceptics, that was launched October 12, 2006.>>

so who are "Friends of Science"?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?t*t...

"In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, funnelled through University of Calgary research funds set up by Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3]

Following an internal audit in 2007, the University determined that some of the research funds accepted on behalf of the Friends of Science "had been used to support a partisan viewpoint on climate change". As a consequence, the University advised FoS "that it would no longer accept funds on the organization's behalf", according to an email from University legal counsel Elizabeth Osler."

in simple terms, not only was the oil industry paying them, but trying to hide the fact that they were paying.  surprise, surprise.

NO, i'm not more skeptical.  why would you be?

Answer 3

thats simply wrong....i can go find you 10 articles that say the complete opposite to every one article you come up with....if ya wanna, ill go get 'em, then you can read yerself to death............

Answer 4

PD....if you don't read articles that start with Al Gore then why do you believe Al Gore. Did you have any problem seeing Al Gore's movie? If the AGW threat was originally brought to the population by well respected scientists more people may believe. But since most people heard about AGW from Al Gore (a politician) it's going to be political from the outset.

Answer 5

I should remind YOU that editorials are not peer-reviewed scientific papers, and that Investor's Business Daily might just have a slight bias in this matter, y'know?

Answer 6

i think global cooling is what we should be worrying about

Answer 7

I always question if Global Warming is a fact or a scheme. I hear all my neighbors and friends commenting on our seasons here in Ohio. "We don't get the snow we used to get" "Last summer was miserabley hot" ETc..etc..But honestly, we've had temps in the teens this winter and most of January was in the low 20's. We've had 3 or 4 snowfalls...no great amounts, but Ohio doesn't often see blizzard like conditions.

Last summer was very mild. Sure, we had some days in the 90's but no more than usual.

So, until I see actual proof that GW is occuring here in my neck of the woods...I won't fully believe it.

Answer 8

its not a study, its a news article. also if a news article quotes "Khabibullo Abdusamatov" the crackpot that denies that there is a greenhouse effect you know you are in for a laugh.

Answer 9

an article with algore in the first sentence is a politically motivated article - no thanks

Answer 10

I have never put much stock in it.  We do know that the atmospheric CO2 level has increased of late.  There is disputed evidence that temperatures have increased.  There is no evidence that these are connected except for computer simulations (controlled experiments are obviously impossible), and if you have tried to use a computer to forecast the weather, you have a pretty good idea of how well that works -- NOT.

Answer 11

I don't think Global Warming is really a big problem.  Ever since the earth existed, it's had it's cycles of both warming and cooling.  But since man hasn't been around for all of them, people tend to think this is the first time.

Plus I heard six years ago, that the polar caps were hardening, not melting.

Answer 12

Here is an parallel web site that confirms what your web site is saying:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

It tracks All Solar activity.  Can anyone find a hint of politics in the web site?

The power of 'Solar Winds' which is coupled with Interplanetary MAGNETIC Fields:

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/imf.htm...

Quote: "Earth has a magnetic field, too. It forms a bubble around our planet called the magnetosphere, which deflects solar wind gusts. (Mars, which does not have a protective magnetosphere, has lost much of its atmosphere as a result of solar wind erosion.)"

To strip the atmosphere from a planet sounds very potent to me!!

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspot...

The Sunspot numbers and strengths corresponds with effects that 'solar minimums' produce..

History of solar minimums as well as good description of today's controversy:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Problems with Greenhouse Theory

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Answer 13

Yes, I think Patterson has a better understanding of climate than most climatologists. How can you understand the current climate without studying the past. He is right in his statements about CO2 and solar forcings. Here is more on Patterson:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Refere...

Answer 14

You cited a BUSINESS editorial, not a scientific editorial.  Do you think a magazine catering to the business community is going to give you accurate scientific information?

Answer 15

ZERO FIGURES in your article

This is a piece of literature but NO SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE.

I work everyday with CO2 and energy consumption data.

If you are so wise, why don´t you go look at the international energy agency data?

Or even  the US dept of energy data? (which as you know is probably full of these oil and coal industry leftists...)

Answer 16

This is an interesting article.  I would really like to see more data about it.  However, at the moment there is more compelling evidence to support human resultant increase in global warming.  Now I say that in the context that global warming happens regardless of what we do.  It is simply happening faster because of what we do.  The other ready example of this is the planet Venus.

Answer 17

The earth has been warming and the oceans rising for the last 8000 years.  With all the new scientific data everyone is overwhelmed and paranoid.  They are taking 30 years of observation and trying to draw conclusions.   They don't want to admit to their mortality and there is NOTHING they can do about it.  This does not mean we should not conserve our resources and use them efficiently, but using 10 gls of fuel to truck green waste to make electricity worth 1 gl is not smart.