Global Warming True Or False?
Posted: Saturday, August 25, 2007
by Bob Smith
Global warming, now there are two buzz words guaranteed to start a debate any time they are mentioned around the old water cooler! Ask any group of people what they think of it, and you will get everything from: ‘Its the end of the world!’ to: ‘Its a left wing hoax designed to destroy our economy!’ So, let us look at just what the facts are.
Then, in 1979, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a report that rising carbon dioxide levels could cause temperatures to rises, and warned that a ‘wait and see attitude’ could be dangerous. Unfortunately, the naysayers in all this are a very powerful group: oil, coal, gas, automotive and steel. All industries that create vast amounts of the greenhouse gases, and all with very deep pockets. Since the late 1980s, they have funded a whole host of lobbying groups like the Global Climate Coalition, and the Information Council on the Environment, specifically to downplay the danger or deny it outright.
On top of that, there is the problem that this issue is not something one nation can address alone. Recently, in the State of California, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an executive order with the goal of reducing car emissions ten percent by 2020. While quite the laudable effort, it will accomplish nothing! China and India are poised to become highly industrialized counties, meaning: more cars, more power plants, more greenhouse gases being vented into the atmosphere. And thats just two nations. What of the rest of the world? It was because of the global nature of the problem that the Rio Treaty on voluntary emission reductions was signed in 1992, and later the Kyoto Treaty was negotiated. However, while President George H.W. Bush signed the Rio Treaty, its mandates were never enacted; and, under pressure from lobbying groups, President George Bush did not sign the Kyoto treaty.
In recent years weve seen the effects of Global Warming: killer heat waves in America and Europe, wilted crops, smaller snow packs and receding glaciers, and bigger and stronger hurricanes. So, we must ask ourselves: who are we to believe? There are thousands of scientists around the world, from all manner of political and social backgrounds who agree that global warming is happening. And then there are the naysayers, all of whom are backed by industries that have a vested interest in preventing any actions that would endanger their profits. Which ones are impartial, do you think?
This Article has been viewed 7,375 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)Global warming is a serious threat to life on earth but it is being blown out of proportion for the sole reason to raise funding which usually is embezzled and squandered.It's soooo not true, earth is going through a cycle, know it is slowly turning into global cooling!!this man is mad..global warming is so true n gonna finish us if we dont stop our co2 emmitionThat is not very smart using the mostcivilizedlanguage possible. :P
Global Warming is a serious issue, affecting all walks of life on Earth. CO2 emissions are more massive than ever, and if we don't do something about this now, life on earth will be very hard for future generations. I'm 15-years-old and very involved with this issue. I'm writing an expository[informative] essay on the issue for Speech and Debate. How are people's careers affected by Global Warming?
Bob, when Svante made his statement there were approximately 1.5 billion people living on this earth. Today there are over 6.6 billion. More than quadrupled. Naturally there are more CO2 emissions. All those humans and animals both domestic and wild, pass enough gas to raise that level. The implications of man made global warming could not be stopped if they were true. And all the scientists who are yelling the sky is falling, admit it. Besides, carbon dioxide particles are NOT the main heat sinks in our atmosphere. Water vapor particles are. We might try covering the oceans with plastic sheetings (it would be cheaper than what is being proposed. And people are daydreaming if they think they can slow China and India's industrial growth. What people better do is get their heads on straight and start working towards a sensible solution to areas of concentrated lower level air polution. Also, your article stopped short of the latest findings. There is every evidence that Al Gore can return his portion of the Nobel prize. The ice you refer to as receding, is back, and there has been no measurable increase in the atmospheric temperature in two years now. And you say that the naysayers are backed by industries that have a vested interest in preventing any actions that would endanger their profits. The opposite is true. Those pushing this agenda are those who are shoveling in millions of grant monies.
Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.Careful TestsThe global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.Lush EnvironmentWhat mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Bullcrap!!! if global warming is real than I'll be a monies uncle. Not that if it were rue I would become the uncle of a monkey, I'm just trying to make a point.I agree
I agree.....global warming is a pile of crap!!! There is proof that the world is actually still COOLING from the last stone age...eat them apples!!! Did you also know that Ale Gore's house uses 20 times more electricity than the average household?!?!?! WHAT A FLIPPIN HIPPOCRITE!!!
Obama wants to give farmers money for NOT producing crops. He calls it CO2 credits. Another Crock! Why pay people for NOT being productive. We shouldn't be taxed on energy costs. What the hell is that going to do for us the consumer??? Energy companies should have an incentive offered to them to make cleaner more efficient fuels. And yes, I agree about Global Warming...it HASN'T been proven. There are still a lot of scientists that don't believe in the new buzz word. Liberal used to stand for Change...Now it stands for "I'm a flipin' idiot that can't think for myself but I'm still rolling with a movement".
You have got to be kidding me, at this point, the science is clear, you can put your head in the sand, but, global warming is here to stay regardless of who or what caused it... we have the opportunity to lessen its long term damages... don't let our grand kids down... start doing something now! By the way, what real sacrifice would it really take for us to lessen the load if you really think about it? Not significant... in the case of global warming, baby steps by all of us would really make a big impact... crawl before you run..
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.