To all people who consider themselves logical thinkers:?

Question

what do you think about this article? Please, DO NOT comment until you read the article (even i skimmed but got the point). Interesting and enlightening is what I got out of it.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

Also, who here can honestly say they have done unbiased research and STILL found Global Warming to be a factual occurrence?

Answer 1

I do believe this is a hoax (global warming) For the same reasons I know the energy crisis is (look up the "energy non-crisis") It's called mis-information and it's puropus is to distract you from the real problems, ie.....The war, space, and everything else they want you to be distracted from. Any way that's what I got from it.

Answer 2

To be blunt, I think it's terrible.  I didn't get very far past this part:

"Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius. "

What research?  Give me some sources.  Cooling 0.037°C since when?  Last year?  Last month?  Yesterday?

This is really basic stuff.  If you're going to talk about "scientific research", then cite your sources.  If you're going to say the planet has cooled, then give your reference point.  Because the planet has obviously not cooled:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Did you notice how when I made a claim I backed it up with scientific data and a solid source (NASA)?  *That* is how you make a good logical argument.  Not by pulling BS out of your butt.

Answer 3

OMGOSH ! how can they say that ?!

i am a strong global warming believer.

ughh.

its people like that, that will totaly ruin us !

Answer 4

I didn't see much in the way of logic in this little rant and in fact i saw several direct lies.

(1) The usual dribble about hoax's and Al Gore

(2) Cooling over the last 18 years, yeah right.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pr...

The bottom figure, shows in red on the left the warmest years almost all in the 90s & 2000s, in other words the 18 years statement is a lie.

(3) "How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?

Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe."

Nonsense, the glacial period of the last 4 ice ages was ~100,000 with ~15000-20000 year warm period in between, we are currently about halfway through that, at  ~11000 years since the end of the last cold period, this info is available from many natural history web sites

(4) The source web site is about as far right as you can go, and I notice the author didn't put his/he name to the story, very scientific.

Anyone who believes this tripe over scientific research should have their I.Q. checked.

Oh the lack of scientific understanding:

Dylan

"Humans cause less than 2% of CO2 emissions. That is fact."

This statement is pretty much an admission that AGW is a fact, what do you think happens if you add 2% to a closed system over say 150 years.

Or put another way if the Earth had no greenhouse effect at all the surface temp would be ~-30c instead of the 14.5c we have, the difference between these ~45c, 2% of this is about 0.7c, guess what the temp rise over the last 100 years is

0.7c, funny how these seem to add up!

Answer 5

Yup - that sums it up nicely.  I use to believe in GW until I started researching it on line.  Thanks for providing the link - made it easier to go to one site instead of 30.

It's recorded that the earth was warmer during medieval times than it is now.  Where I live we are having more snow and it is lasting longer than it had in years.  We still had snow in late May.

Oh - the global warming crowd has no scientist to back them up.  Oh Peg - I have seen more recent reports than the one he posted and they say the same thing.

Answer 6

It's refreshing to see an article like that.

Someone's finally listening to us here in YA!!!

Answer 7

That article is totally devoid of helpful content.  The writer shows no understanding of Global Warming and the research around it.  There are a handful of researchers who do offer thoughtful scientific but this guy is not one.  S/he is misleading, rather ignorant actually.  I would avoid reading that blog.  There is so much c**p on the Internet.  Read the Bush administration's report of a couple of weeks ago.  I charts the changes by region of the country -- and yes some parts have cooled some have warmed, some have received more rain some less.  Citing 39-days in one part of one country is just too devoid of thought to even go into any further.

Answer 8

So you skimmed the article but expect other people to read it before commenting.  And the article itself was written during the Clinton Administration, cites no scientific data, and provides no particular references to back up its claims-like a bibliography.  Little wonder you're lookig for logical thinkers... kinda like me hiring a mechanic, eh?

It's a puff piece.

There are some apparently qualified professionals around here who are commenting on global warming, but most of us shouldn't bandy about the term 'research' too casually.  Listening to talk show hosts on the radio, watching cable TV and googling 'global warming' is not exactly 'research.'

That being said, the data that I have seen indicates that global warming is occurring, the greenhouse effect is scientifically documented, and human activities do contribute to the phenomenon.  What is not known is how much and the effect it will have on the environment long term, but there is serious concern and a statistical probability that mankind could accelerate a natural process so that changes will occur over decades rather than centuries.  Moreover, there is a possibility that human activities could add just enough fuel to the fire to be a 'tipping point' which would result in very rapid and inhospitable changes in the environment world wide.  But no one knows for sure what the outcome will be, even the most august bodies in science talk in terms of risk and probability rather than certainty.

What actions we should take is the question, but in concert with the global tensions and growing warfare over energy supplies, the effort to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is a logical and major first step to take.  And anything else 6 billion + people can do to minimize our impact on the environment is just good sense.

But then, I'm not a scientist.  On the other hand, I don't put much stock in the opinions of convenience store clerks et al who claim to KNOW global warming is a hoax and scam, I just do this for entertainment.

Answer 9

Well, for one thing, it is completely out of date--they think that Clinton is still in the White House and Gore is Vice President! So in other words, they've ignored all the science that has been done this century.  A lot more data is in, climate models have improved, the IPCC has issued a new report.  If you're going to base your thinking on out-of-date material, why don't

you bring up something from 100 years ago, when global warming didn't even exist?  So, I can honestly say that climate scientists have done unbiased research and still found global warming to be a factual occurrence, in fact, I know some of them personally.

EDIT: Just to clarify, here is a quote from this silly article, just to show you how on top of things they are:

"So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. "

Answer 10

sounds interesting, but is way to long

Answer 11

I knew this to be true a long time ago...

It's simple...

Was there an ice age?

Were the humans (if any) the cause of the "warming"?

Answer 12

Okay. I disagree with this article wholeheartedly on more than one standard. I believe that 1) the only way we will be able to survive long term as a species is following the rules of nature that have been evolving and keeping ecosystems balanced for millions of years and 2) global warming is the farthest thing from a hoax.

It is no doubt that CO2 is emmitted during the production of most modern electricity. It is also proven that CO2 causes a rise in temperature. as to the claims that the planet is cooling, I have also read in a book called "h**l and high water" that cooling in some areas is to be expected because of the slowing of a current that pulls water all across the atlantic ocean. (can't remember the name, but it's the same concept as 'The Day After Tomorrow' even though the movie didn't portray it correctly).

Beyond that, switching to renewable energy actually isn't wasting any money at all. If we generate locally,  best case scenario, on site, we will lose less electricity in transport and no longer have to pay utility companies. Solar panels especially last a very long time and therefore will be around long after we begin to reap the economic benefits.

As for food, renewable energy would not drive prices up at all. According to a representative from Green Energy Ohio, there is only 20 years of oil left in the earth (in accessible places). Therefore, gas prices are skyrocketing, driving up the cost of food that is transported from places like Chile into the US. Buying locally and supporting local agriculture is the only logical way to avoid that.

Lastly, what are our intentions for energy production once non-renewable means such as coal and natural gas are gone? We will be left to rely on renewable sources such as solar. So Global Warming or no, we will be faced with this crisis eventually. Please do investigate this further, I think you will be surprised to find that the answers are already among us.

Answer 13

A nice rant.  Pity the writer used "emotive" arguments rather than scientific ones.  In doing so, the writer (IMO) is in exactly the same class of "chicken little mentality" (the sky's falling) as Al Gore.

I agree that "global warming" is the world's biggest hoax.  However, rather than joining the vast number of scare mongers already touting the dire straits of "global warming" evangelism, I would have been more impressed with facts (rather than you won't be able to drive your car after dark).

Fact:  Data recording today is meticulous.  We know whether a daytime temperature was taken in the shade, or in direct sunlight.  We also know the time of day it was taken.  The historical records that the GWE (global warming evangelists) rely on to validate their findings is not so accurate.  Someone would physically go out and look at a mercury thermometer.  Was the reading affected by direct sunlight?  Was the reading affected by wind chill?  Was the reading affected by radiant heat from other surfaces?  Did the recorder write the correct information?  Or transpose figures?  We'll never know.  The fact is that historical records are an "indication" only, and should never be taken as "gospel".  Yet GWEs are happy to draw graphs based on this erroneous data.

As a statistical analyst friend of mine says... the data will confess to anything if you torture it long enough!

In short, "global warming" is a hoax.  20,000 years ago, the planet was in the middle of an ice age.  The planet's temperature goes through regular cycles of heating and cooling.  While I agree wholeheartedly that we need to take better care of our dearest blue pearl of a planet, the GWEs would be better off demanding there be a planet-wide legislation put into place that makes companies that pollute our home, open to prosecution (and solely responsible for the clean-up costs).  When companies like Union Carbide are held accountable -- regardless of where on the planet the pollution/crime was commited --  then maybe our children and grandchildren will be better off.  Until that day (as the writer states)... large corporations will simply move their operations offshore, to third world countries where they can "escape" persecution/prosecution.

Answer 14

The article is ancient, and clearly political, rather than scientific.  Forget "those here", few of whom are qualified.  These scientists have done unbiased research:

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

The article makes the ridiculous claim that "there is no evidence".  Here's 1000 pages of evidence:

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report....

summarized at:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...

Pure hogwash.  You reject science and believe these guys on a scientific issue?   "The American Policy Center (APC), located in suburban Washington, D.C., is dedicated to the promotion of free enterprise and limited government regulations over commerce and individuals."

By the way, humans may cause only a few percent of carbon emissions, but it's the important part.  Natural sources of CO2 are balanced by natural sinks.  Our few percent is messing that balance up.  More here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Just political nonsense.