CO2 Causes Global Warming? Totally Wrong!

March 21, 2007

“You’re not just off a little, you’re totally wrong.”
– Rep. Joe Barton (R) Texas

Al Gore testified in front of congress about the threat of global warming. He asserted, with the blessing of pretty much the entire scientific community, that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming. Not so, according to rep. Barton! Who knew that Barton was a scientist! And don’t you wish he’d hurry up and publish his astounding data so that the rest of those so-called “experts” can get up to speed?


No comments yet

  1. While I disagree with the theory that human industrial activity has warmed the planet, I’m certainly not going to sit by and cry over a battle that those of my ilk have lost. I’ll exploit it – just like the corporate lobbyists will do for their companies when Congress starts handing out tax credits, grant money, and all the other trapping that come with new legislation.

    Here is a list of “green stocks” – publicly traded companies that make their money off, well, environmentally accommodating things. Certainly not all are ones that I would invest in, but some of them definitely stand to make a killing – especially when the next Democrat takes the Presidency in 2009.

    If your gasoline is going to go up to more than $5/gallon, may as well try to make up for it with some background investing.

    As far as Gore goes: It is important to note that the scientists – both the pro-warming, and the skeptics – all testified earlier this week. Except for the few stories mentioning that guy from NASA who did 1400 public appearances an interviews and claims he was “silenced” by the Bush administration, there was basically no mainstream news reporting of the actual scientists and their research.

    But, like I said: the enviros have won this one. So, time for those who have the money to cash in on what will cost the poor quite dearly over the next few decades.

  2. While I disagree with the theory that human industrial activity has warmed the planet

    Try to look at yourself through my eyes for just a second. On the one hand we have the majority of scientific experts on the planet telling me, a lay person, that global warming is a real problem. On the other hand, there’s you, Barton, and a shrinking minority of scientists, many of whom are quite clearly in the pay of the oil industry, saying that the whole theory is “totally wrong.”

    Whatever it is that makes you so convinced that global warming is no big deal, here’s what I want to know: why does it completely fail to impress the vast majority of climate experts?

    Work with me here.

  3. At this point, since the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real, and that human activity is contributing to it, it is completely up to the naysayers to prove their point, or they should be ignored. There is no other logical way to deal with these fringe opinions.

    So David, please lay out a compelling argument backed by scientific data – or lay out a case that explains 400 of the 405 world’s climatologists must be on the payroll of Sierra Club.

    Otherwise, recognize that your comment carries no weight and does not deserve a moment of consideration.

  4. Me, I don’t even want to hear any scientific or pseudo-scientific arguments. I don’t know enough to evaluate them. It’s enough for me to know that they fail to impress the world’s experts. When that changes, let me know.

  5. I’m still waiting to see the actual data that equates total atmospheric volume with the estimated volume of CO2 produced by human activity. One volcanic eruption produces as much particulate matter and greenhouses, including CO2, than humans can generate in six months to a year or more. According to scientists, termites and live stock world wide generate more methane and CO2 than all humans and associated activity. Let’s kill all the cows to save the planet! We are also reaching the peak between ice ages (as predicted scientists) and global temperatures should be rising, releasing CO2 captured in melting polar ice. I am NOT convinced that human activity has that much impact on global temperature over natural causes, especially causes that we have NO control over. The fact is that global temperatures are rising, but most of the “expert” scientists are running on theory, not actual data with regards to human versus natural causes. I still remember the bulk of “expert” scientist testifying in 1977 before Congress and flooding Time and Newsweek with dire predictions that we are heading into an ice age if we don’t change our ways. Gore has no creditability with me since he preaches conservation and reduction of greenhouse activities while on the hand consumes 20 times the electricity than the average US home. He flies in private jets and drives (or is driven) in gas guzzling SUVs. He buys carbon credits in an organization which he is a major investor, so the money is coming back to him. Hollywood loves him, but many see him as hypocrite.

  6. So if I can summarize:

    a) you have questions about manmade and natural sources of CO2 and how they affect global warming

    b) you believe all the scientists who say global warming is a problem are operating on “theory” not “data” and thus their conclusions are doubtful

    c) some scientists were wrong about something in the past, thus present scientists conclusions are doubtful

    d) you don’t like Al Gore and you believe he is a hypocrite.

    One at a time then:

    1. To borrow a phrase from representative Barton – totally wrong! Volcanos produce 145-255 million tons of CO2 every year. Human activity such as burning fossil fuel produce 24 billion tons. That,if you do the math, is about 150 times more than volcanos produce. Who the hell is telling you that a single volcano produces more CO2 than all of human history? What possibly could be their motive? That’s not just an error, that’s deliberately false information. Who is telling you this?

    2. Your concerns about sound scientific methodology are admirable, but really – what do you know about it? Am I to take your side over theirs? Why would I do that? Why would anyone?

    3. That whole ice age thing is bullshit, too.

    4. Turns out Gore isn’t a hypocrit either.

    Where are you getting this stuff?

  7. If I explain why I find the scientific theories of the global warming conformists (anthropogenic) crowd less credible, at least from a policy-making standpoint, than those of the skeptics (natural cycle) crowd what chance is there that it would actually change your mind? None, I suspect.

    But here goes: for me at has always been about logic and the quality of the evidence presented. I refuse to give deference to people who tell me I should just “trust” what they say because I’m too stupid or uneducated to grasp the underlying concepts. The anthropogenic crowd is heavy on that sort of elitist authoritarianism. When their biggest and most vocal proponents are politicians, it makes me even more suspicious of the underlying data.

    In light of that, I do read the data. I’m a data junkie to begin with but when politicians and wealthy people from entertainment and the energy/oil industry start getting heavily involved, I’m left trusting the only conclusion I can trust: my own.
    Just as in a murder trial where pathologists from both sides – fully qualified in their respective fields – give opposing conclusions about a scientific matter, it is up to the lay person to determine which one is more credible. You take their information, put it in context of the other evidence, and determine who makes the more compelling case.

    That’s exactly what I do where the climate science is concerned. I don’t stop at just the headlines; I find the original journal publications and read it for myself. It’s not as conceptually out of the grasp of a layperson as you suggest. Climate science doesn’t delve all into areas of unknown quantum physics or anything like that. The elements involved (carbon, oxygen, etc.) are the stuff of high school science classes – where the chemical and physical characteristics and interactions are very well understood, and have been for a long time.

    When it comes to determining climate change, the bulk of what they’re “working on” boils down to good old fashioned math & statistics. You’re a computer guy Scott; you know the term “garbage-in, garbage-out”. The wrong input data will give the wrong results. Unfortunately, since we did not have satellites and temperature & atmospheric measuring stations around the planet hundreds and thousand and millions of years ago, the climate scientists have to make a judgment call, a “guess” if you will, on a significant portion of their input data. This is where I find that the anthropogenic crowd loses their case.

    Secondary to that is the logical leap that they have yet to explain – clearly and reproducible in a lab environment or through formulas – on how humans are the cause of catastrophic climate change right now, but in the past it was always just a natural occurrence. None of the literature explains that to any degree of what I would consider compelling enough to start overhauling our trade & commerce laws to the detriment of the poor.

    You’re content letting Hollywood types and biased politicians tell you what they consider to be the undeniable “truth”. I’m not. I’d suggest you read some of the scientific material that serves as the basis for these debates. If not that, then maybe some of the scientists who are bailing on the anthropogenic theory (like Claude Allegre) might make a more qualified case than I can.

    I’ll leave with this: You rely heavily on this concept that if a majority of scientists support it, it must be true. You would do well to hold more skepticism than that over people who hold the title of “scientist”. While I personally am not a scientist, I work in the science industry; I interact with scientists every single day; I am personal friends with a number of them outside of work; and I actually live with a physician who works right now as a clinical research scientist. While many have this sort of Norman Rockwell vision of scientific research where people in white lab coats are all delving into formulas and numbers and so on, and that all this political and financial mumbo-jumbo holds no importance or influence over them, I speak to you from first-hand observation that nothing could be further from the truth.

    Money, politics (both the career/office kind and the government kind), personal vendettas, narcissism, sabotage, and just plain incompetence that’s protected by disguise and/or stature, are as alive and well in the world of science as they are in the worlds of Wall Street, fashion design, journalism, or any other industry.

    That’s why I go get the information for myself and it is why, at this point anyway (not saying I will neverchange my view on the topic), I do not feel the claims of the anthropogenic global warming are credible enough to implement the kinds of legal and policy changes that the lawmakers have suggested.

  8. There’s something I just don’t get about this whole argument. It would seem that we all agree that extra CO2 gas in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming. The origin of that gas, whether from natural occurences or the burning of fossil fuels, really doesn’t matter. We have an opportunity, as the supposed most intelligent beings on this planet, to put forth a concious effort to control some of those gases and we’re bogged down in political rhetoric about who’s “right” and who’s “wrong”. It doesn’t matter! Why wouldn’t we take advantage of that opportunity?! Even if some of the rise in global temperatures is from natural occurences, why would we use that as an excuse to add to the problem when we clearly have the capabilities to be better consumers? (I mean consumers in the biological sense not the business sense, consumers of resources, I knew that Zoology degree would come in handy some day!) And the answer to that question, sadly, has nothing to do with science or the environment and everything to do with the almighty dollar. Those fighting alternative fuels and more efficient engines are the ones trying to protect their own investments. Our society would rather be greedy than logical.

    DISCLAIMER: Yes, I have a BS in Zoology and am trained as a “scientist” but am not currently working in the field. I have not seen Al Gore’s movie nor do I really have any interest. It seems to be sensationalism at its finest. I believe global warming is caused by a combination of things from both sides of the argument. It is certainly viable that some of it is naturally occuring. But it is undeniable that our use of fossil fuels is adding to the problem. I guess you could call me a “scientist” in the pureset sense. I am not ruled by grant money or politics, I simply believe in applying logic to the “big picture”. I have yet to hear a logical reason why our government shouldn’t be doing everything they can to encourage a more efficient society.

  9. I guess i have 2 thoughts on this subject.

    1. There is a corralation (sp) between the tempature of earth and the number of sunspots. we are in a cycle of high sunspot activity which is affecting not only earth, but mars. (say nothing of the fact that the earth is in the part of the orbit where its closes to the sun)
    so yes, global warming is real. Is it a problem, yes. is it man-made, Maybe.
    2. an economy based on fossel fules is un-sustainable, yes it works now. but there are so many better technoligies on the horizion that only a fool would ignore them.

  10. Regarding point 1, Jay, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of what you’ve written. But does it not occur to you that the vast majority of the world’s experts are steadfastly unimpressed with this supposed correlation? Or do you simply suppose the vast majority of them have not heard of this fact? Again, I’m inclined to rather facetiously invite you to call them up and rock their world with this new info.

    Regarding point 2, I couldn’t agree more. I think we need to start looking at way more nuclear power here in the United States, myself.

  11. Well, just for conversation sake . . .

    It’s not the the scientists have been unimpressed with the sunspot activity discussion . . . it’s been ignored completely! As has been the discussion of the atmospheric temperature readings from satellites as opposed to ground temperatures, as has been water vapor contributions, as has been the completely illogical notion that known data that represents somewhere around .0000006% of the actual is somehow conclusive . . .

    Shrinking minority? Seems to me the skeptics are increasing in voice steadily! Just look at the amount of headlines you are now seeing as opposed to two years ago.

    As for money, there’s huge money on the side of the alarmists. Grant money. Lots of it. I won’t deny there are those connected with big oil that are acting in self interest. But the incentive exists on the other side as well.

  12. 1. “It’s been ignored completely!” could very well mean “there’s no reason to think this means jack shit!” – us not being experts, there’s no way for us to step in and mediate that. Is there? Me, I’m inclined to think that the experts know their business better than I do. And I don’t worry so much about them taking my gullible ass for a ride, as they are engaged in a cutthroat business where only the best ideas win out in the end.

    2. The media coverage of climate change is not a bit representative of what is going on in the scientific community. There was this telling comparison: 800 some odd peer reviewed articles on climate change were reviewed and not one of them put forth the idea that it wasn’t man-made. Meanwhile, 50% of newspaper articles during the same years indicated that it was a toss up. No, the media has done a terrible job of conveying the degree of unanimity among the scientific community.

    Money on the side of “the alarmists”? You expect me to believe that all of the world’s experts in the field of climate change are basically conspiring to delude us all so they can, what, get a government grant or something? That’s supposed to be the equivalent of the oil industry openly paying people $10,000 cash for anyone with a phd to write anything skeptical of global warming? Come on! That’s not even in the same league. Besides which, the scientific community has one commodity, one stock in trade: good data and telling the truth. The oil industry has zero to lose by lying: their product isn’t truth, it’s fuel. No, consider me unimpressed with the ‘corrupt scientists’ theory. Quite unimpressed.

  13. Well, others have felt that these components mean more to them and the issue than “jack shit”. Some highly regarded people.

    Nope. No delusions. Never called anyone “corrupt”. Just that like those who probably aren’t gaining anything monetarily on the side of doom and gloom, there are those on the side of the skeptics that have nothing to gain from their dissention. In fact, with their dissention face huge criticism . . . not because of any flaw in their ideas, but simply because they’re dissenting. Again though, I accept there are those who are highly motivated by oil company (and others) money.

    The “best ideas” win out in the end? Like Vioxx? Rezulin? Zebra mussels? Silicon implants? What is Pluto now? The list could go on.

    Anyhoo, I continue to be a skeptic myself. But the discussion is fun.

  14. Lets put some science in layman’s terms here, or as close as we can manage:

    There is little doubt the air’s CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity’s use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air’s CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

    A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air’s CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century’s weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth’s temperature history.

    The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

    In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years – three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions – we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air’s CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

    Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth’s climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

    Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

    A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

    All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air’s CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world’s low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth’s boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region’s powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

    Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air’s CO2 content.

    Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world’s oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.

    Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

    And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory “breath of the biosphere” – its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition – has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content.

    Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth’s history when the air’s CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

    C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

  15. Fascinating! One question, though: why does this argument utterly fail to impress other scientists?

    Or is it designed for lay consumption?

    Also, it’s fun to hop on Google and see where the “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change” gets their money. Try it!

  16. All very interesting, children. But before all the squabling breaks out again – can a senior with many years of experience of living and travelling this planet have a few words. Simply – do not panic.

    I defy anyone to produce any evidence of a permanent climatical condition of this planet. You have absolutely no right to anticipate some sort of stable climatic order – simply because there has never, ever been one! Neither does our species have the right – on such a volatile planet, to expect to remain living and/or predominate idefinitely.

    We currently live in the “Goldilocks Zone” in time and space that make our planet habitable for us, our species. It was not always so – and we are a relatively very recent phenominum. So enjoy it while it lasts! Just as likely – a previously unidentified astroid may strike our planet and cause a global catastrophic event – it has happened many times before. Or, the Yellowstone park could erupt again – plunging the planet into a nuclear Winter – these are all “maybes” with as much grain of truth as some of the celebrity ecologists doom laden propoganda on “man made climate change”. But “to horse” on this particular debate.

    If we are to believe the scientifically calculated figures – CO2 (carbon dioxide) is a tiny constituent of our whole atmospheric mix, aproximately 1/400th of 1 percent. The man made proportion of that total is guessed at, but in my view it is even tinier (going by released assumptions) – so how does that smaller proportion of a gas end up being responsible for forcing global warming? What about the vastly superior mega tonnes of gaseous water vapour – which constitutes a far greater impact on global weather and temperature than relatively tiny amounts of CO2? What about methane? Most of our atmosphere, I have discovered is Nitrogen and Oxygen – not CO2. Compared with past times, we have a paucity of CO2 in our atmosphere. CO2 is also essential to life on this planet and the atmospheric system has so far managed to balance itself – without any human intervention.

    Our atomsphere and climatic systems are vast and very complex and for some “scientists” to try and reduce this whole complex subject to some kind of stable product that it is somehow acting out of charecter – is frankly ridiculous! (Almost as bad as my “hunt and peck” typing!) The problems of estimating global temperature – (near Earth and at higher levels which is all important to this debate), and tonnages of atmospheric gases with any degree of accuaracy are immense.

    There does appear to be a gentle lower level atmospheric warming. It also seems likely that we are nearing the peak of an inter-glacial period of warming. But that “peak” could be centuries away. If past evidence is anything to go by, the process will eventually reverse and our planet will grow cooler and less hospitable as we return to another ice age. If that happens – centuries from now – humankind will not only have to contend with vast ice sheets covering land we currently live and grow pour crops on, but also the vast surrounding deserts that would be created.

    The more important questions we should all be considering are the rapidly growing World human population and its related domestic animals – v’s – the available essential resources and especially the water and food supplies. Given that temperatures will continue to rise resulting in gradually increasing sea levels and possibly more arid land areas – the above mentioned human priorities are paramount – not theoretical arguments.

    How will we protect low lying coastal areas? How will we cope with vast migrations of starving and thirsty people? If the planet is warming more and more rapidly – arguing about reducing human CO2 levels are less imperative than planning and acting to actually DEAL with the forecast effects.

    But strangely, our leaders are more concerned with higher taxation to fund another arms race and foreign wars, carbon trading money juggling business schemes and investing in expanding to meet growing energy demands – instead of actively doing things to help in reducing demand! (My Government also had leaders in favour of building our way out of the problems by way of a series of new “super-casinos” – gaming houses!! I kid you not – that is how concerned the UK Government was – and it clashes with their “climate” and “sustainability” concerns expressed on the World stage.

    Our leaders are also setting poor examples on lower carbon “footprints” and sustainable living – while thrashing the rest of us – Why?? (I don’t see Al Gore downsizing his luxury lifestyle to “save the planet” – do you?) The flying and cruising markets are being rapidly expanded. All nations are engaged in a frenzy of building projects – including the UK – massive projects with little regard to the environment and sustainability. So why should you and I be panicking about our immediate future – when our political leaders are clearly so little concerned – whatever they say at summits?

    Of course we should all live responsibly and sustainably – but why don’t we insist that those at the proverbial “Top” of our society do the same? Global catastrophe man made? Yes – but not climate change – and the forcing cause is probably political apathy!

  17. Scott,

    you are completely WRONG when you make statements claiming that the scientific community agrees on Global Warming. The statement by the IPCC and others like Al “an inconvenient Boron” Gore is that there is a CONSENSUS!!

    consensus = Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole

    Now, since these “groups” are Political structures (just check out who RUNS the labs, Institutes, the IPCC etc.) and not primarily SCIENTIFIC, the consensus is among a bunch of POLITICIANS!!!

    Is this sinking in yet??

    There are BILLIONS of dollars at stake in grants, gifts, endowments… to these organisations.

    Here is a petition with over 1000 PHD’s in REAL SCIENCE and thousands of other scientists of various degrees who all disagree. The site has much interesting data and research on the environment:


    Try this PAPER:


    It is by 2 German Physicists and falsifies the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Theory as Put Forward by the IPCC.

    I would also point out that in spite of the CO2 level increasing nicely over the last 30 years, the last 10 has had a temperature increase within the measurement error. In fact Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 has had a rather large DROP!! If CO2 has such great feedback mechanisms associated with it how could the temperature rise be interrupted??

    Except for the fact that the sun is at a rather low output at the moment…


  18. not primarily SCIENTIFIC, the consensus is among a bunch of POLITICIANS!!!

    No consensus? Check out the wikipedia article on the subject, especially paragraph two (which is rife with links and footnotes):

    The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[17][18][19] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[22] explicitly use the word “consensus” when referring to this conclusion.

    There are BILLIONS of dollars at stake in grants

    I’ve heard this theory before. Somehow we can’t trust scientists because they’re just angling for grant money. First of all, this calls into question the scientific endeavor in its entirety, not just that part concerned with climate change. Just so you understand the scope of the implication here. Second of all, none of these scientists are getting rich off research grants. I work at a university. I’ve dated scientists who do research in labs, whose careers and futures are dependent on them. And I can tell you unequivocally that the idea that these people might be deceiving us all about cilmate change to preserve those grants is ludicrous. Science is empirical and their work is peer-reviewed. Nobody can get away with such deception for very long in this arena. It’s just not likely. And even less likely in an area under such intense scrutiny. It’s just ridiculous.

    Most importantly, I find it extremely odd that you’re deeply suspicious of the influence of money on the opinions of some nerds in labs, but totally credulous when it comes to the other side. There is vastly more money at stake in keeping the fossil fuel and associated industries on their current course. Yet somehow I’m supposed to be suspicious of scientists because they are given grant money by the government? If money is a pernicious influence on the opinions of everyone involved, then shouldn’t there be a corresponding influence on the skeptics side? Actually it would be a much larger influence, because there’s a whole lot more money on your side.

    Tell me again: who benefits financially from a belief in climate change? How much do they benefit? Now tell me who benefits from disbelief in it. How much?

    Here is a petition…Try this PAPER…I would also point out

    What are you, an expert that I should trust your ability to assess these things within the context of decades of other work? You don’t know jack shit. And neither do I. What I do know, is that these things are failing to convince the actual experts. And that’s all I need to know.

    By the way, the sun thing? >Wrong

  19. Or, you could consider that warming causes CO2. CO2 does NOT cause warming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: