Will we ever learn that Global Warming is a farce?

Question

Here's the latest article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Answer 1

To answer your question, No.

Answer 2

When will the scientifically uninformed ever learn the difference between op-ed pieces and science?

This is just one more in a series of opinion pieces by political ideologues with no significant training or understanding of science, with numerous misleading statements.

Answer 3

I think at least 50% of the population already does.

Answer 4

This article is just Right wing rhetoric.  There's not a single substantive criticism,.

Answer 5

Ok, so I just had to write an annotated bibliography paper on the argument of the causes of Global Warming.  So yes, the planet has officially heated up 1 defree f.  Big deal.  I found so many things that prove man has NOTHING to do with the big bad 1 degree temp. increase.  

Did you know that the polar ice caps are melting on mars?  

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/...

This article comes out of National Geographic, just proving it's all b.s.!  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

So what this means, and all the "Intellectuals" shoudl realize is, it is not man made!!!!  It's solar, the sun, the planet.... nothing to do with us!!!!  Why else would Mars' ice caps be melting, because you cant tell me that a factory, here on earth, thousands of light years away did that.

I am so annoyedwith the whole "Going green!"  Also, they keep usuing words to trick everyone by saying "This is the hottest summer we have on record!"  Well records only go back to like 150 years ago.  Now they are proving that dated all the way back to the midevil times it was much hotter then, than it is now.  It's all just one big scare tactic and we have no clue what our planet has done thousands and millions of years ago.  Our planet my rotate from ice age to heat age.  Didnt anyone hear about how it snowed in the middle east?

Youre the coolest Robert!

Ohh yeah, how about that gas price increase!  He have the lovely libs to thank for that one!!!  How bout them taxes!!

Answer 6

Yea, last night as I was freezing cold, I wondered where all the heat went from the day before....  Yet they expand the impact of CO2 over decades????

It doesn't even pass the day and night test, yet they got people brainwashed that it impacts everything....  Scientifically impossible for CO2 to even maintain the same temperature from dusk until dawn, yet they are convinced that it stores and magnifies heat over decades....   WOW!

Answer 7

Probably when they wake up and find a glacier pushing their house into the Gulf of Mexico.

Answer 8

Hey BIG DUMMY - To educate yourself read below:

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).

There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.

There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.

The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.

Answer 9

More than a farce ,it could be called a scam. They play like it is against the oil co. It sounds like the oil co. have taken full advantage of the situation.

Answer 10

No.  As Jello said:

"or do you believe the IPCC's data is good enough"

He has that right.

The "hockey stick" is an excellent example of how relatively minor flaws don't change basic conclusions.

The National Academy of Sciences criticized the statistical methods used, but stated that the basic conclusion (that we're warmer now than in the past 1000 years) was correct.

Careful analysis of the temperature data shows that urbanization has not altered the measured rise in temperature significantly.

This is just the very few "skeptics" picking at the data with minor issues.  It changes nothing.

Answer 11

global warming!?!

it doesn't exists!

aduh!?!

Answer 12

Maybe if you can find some scientific data to support your argument instead of just linking right-wing op-ed pieces.

Here's what's wrong with this article:

It's just the same old junk.  It talks about the Hockey Stick, whose accuracy has essentially been confirmed by many subsequent reconstructions.

http://globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1...

In fact, the Wegman analysis of the Hockey Stick discussed in the article has been proven to be amateurish and wrong.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/p...

Then it talks about the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed by several different methods, including a comparision to the satellite lower troposphere measurements.

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

Then it talks about the analysis of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank.  Pardon me for not caring what a right-wing think tank thinks about climate science, considering the history of right-wing think tanks on the subject.

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

Basically the whole article is based on a right-wing think tank using old, disproven arguments.  No wonder it's in the Washington Times.

Answer 13

Oh tell us wise one, and lead us not into temptation but on the path of Haliburton , glory be to oil in the highest!

Answer 14

Sure.

AFTER Algore and his buddies have made a mint off of the rest of us!