|
Stay away from global warming scams
Share
Email
Print
CommentThe article “Cool spring dampening possibilities for corn crop” caught my eye. My immediate thought, given the plethora of recent articles about global warming, was that we are now going to see the wacko environmental nuts like Al Gore hypothesizing that global warming is the cause of the cool spring that is creating a greater crisis for food and ethanol production.
Al Gore and those same wacko environmental nuts are responsible for the ethanol scam, which has recently been the subject of other articles from respected authorities as an idea whose time has come and gone due to the fact that it is not a workable solution to energy conservation. Anyone who still thinks that using corn as an additive to gasoline to make cars more efficient needs to research this and learn the true facts. The shortage of food in the world and the high prices for food today are directly related to this mistake by some well-meaning gullible individuals, and more importantly, by large corporations and Al Gore’s foundation, which benefits financially from creating this problem.
Al Gore and those same wacko environmental nuts are responsible for the ethanol scam, which has recently been the subject of other articles from respected authorities as an idea whose time has come and gone due to the fact that it is not a workable solution to energy conservation. Anyone who still thinks that using corn as an additive to gasoline to make cars more efficient needs to research this and learn the true facts. The shortage of food in the world and the high prices for food today are directly related to this mistake by some well-meaning gullible individuals, and more importantly, by large corporations and Al Gore’s foundation, which benefits financially from creating this problem.
I believe the ethanol “solution” has been thoroughly debunked and would like to focus this letter on “global warming” instead.
There is a great deal of responsible research that indicates that all of Al Gore’s information in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” is based on unreliable sources. Al Gore is associated with, and the head of, a London-based organization that derives its income by selling carbon credits. This is hardly a platform to set Al Gore up as an unbiased authority on global warming. I have written several letters to the Register quoting referencing the more than 400 real climatologists, meteorologists and other distinguished scientists who have debunked Gore’s unsubstantiated baloney.
There is a great deal of responsible research that indicates that all of Al Gore’s information in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” is based on unreliable sources. Al Gore is associated with, and the head of, a London-based organization that derives its income by selling carbon credits. This is hardly a platform to set Al Gore up as an unbiased authority on global warming. I have written several letters to the Register quoting referencing the more than 400 real climatologists, meteorologists and other distinguished scientists who have debunked Gore’s unsubstantiated baloney.
I would suggest that interested Register readers pull up “global cooling” on Google and read the following articles for current information. In my opinion, we won’t have a good answer to this climate riddle for millions of years but the speculation by Gore and his cohorts is just that — hysteria to sell his movie and enrich those that benefit from these scams. The articles are:
1) The cool wet spring article, by David Mercer AP, from May 31 Register
1) The cool wet spring article, by David Mercer AP, from May 31 Register
2) Blog comments from Stu Ostro, senior meteorologist, not dated
3) UC Davis, David Perlman, S.F. Chronicle Jan. 5, 2008
4) Power Line Global Cooling Alert, Feb. 9, 2008
5) Fox, Evidence of Global Cooling, Brit Hume, Feb. 28, 2008
Al Gore’s assertions that the argument over whether global warming is occurring is over, and the fact that our governments have accepted this false assumption at the local, state and federal level is premature and alarming since the costs to subsidize the creation of alternative fuels to petroleum may bankrupt our country. Let’s contact our representatives and ask them to vote yes on drilling, no on ethanol and a resounding no on government participation in any of these scams.
(Loftfield lives in Napa.)
3) UC Davis, David Perlman, S.F. Chronicle Jan. 5, 2008
4) Power Line Global Cooling Alert, Feb. 9, 2008
5) Fox, Evidence of Global Cooling, Brit Hume, Feb. 28, 2008
Al Gore’s assertions that the argument over whether global warming is occurring is over, and the fact that our governments have accepted this false assumption at the local, state and federal level is premature and alarming since the costs to subsidize the creation of alternative fuels to petroleum may bankrupt our country. Let’s contact our representatives and ask them to vote yes on drilling, no on ethanol and a resounding no on government participation in any of these scams.
(Loftfield lives in Napa.)
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
Common Sense wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:24 AM:
bloodagar wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:51 AM:
Brit Hume, although he graduated from University of Virginia with high hopes of Journalism, has become one of those gentlemen that need to process facts and comment for the American people.
Power Line Global Cooling Alert, Feb. 9, 2008: HELLO, written by LAWYERS...NOT SCIENTISTS.
David Perlman ALAS, another NEWSPAPERMAN who is NOT a SCIENTIST.
Stu Ostro...Is a BS man in Meterology who runs like away from Thunder & Lightning...still NOT a SCIENTIST.
David Mercer...still not a Scientist, he's an AP reporter.
I don't particularly like spin doctors...then again, I have yet to meet a really good one.
I tore into the world of Science with textbooks, lectures and looking into myself to see what the experts say...So to have people like the FOX news reporters (Seriously, are you kidding me?) spit in the eye of reputable Scientists and laugh at the facts is just disgusting. "
kevin wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:17 AM:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=8f5c9829-c459-4d17-89bb-3e3b04d8d444&Region_id=&Issue_id=
I wonder if "bloodagar" was as upset when the pro man made global warming crowd utilized non scientists in support of their theory? "
JustMy$.02 wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:30 AM:
Timothy Ball Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter geologist, James Cook University in Australia
Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric Science MIT
George V. Chilinger Professor of Civil Engineering USC
Ian Clark Professor of Hydrology, University of Ottawa
William Kininmonth former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
All of these guys and many many more will debunk the sewage spewing forth from those like Al Gore (who by the way spends thousands a month on electricity for his house).
Once again, the sky is not falling "
glenroy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:34 AM:
A little more than a little irony here is that even if this wasn’t a scam the advocates of this unsubstantiated theory are more than a ‘little’ responsible for millions of tons of green houses gases being dumped in to the air daily as they are, or were, virtually all anti-nuclear power…so instead of a few dozen clean nuclear power plants hundreds of coal fired power plants were built.
The more time you spend with the ‘left’ the more you realize their constantly chasing their own tails, spinning and spinning and spinning…and they wonder why we don’t get it.
We do get it… "
Kevin Eggers wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:52 AM:
“In the present case in which United Nations apparatchiks have proclaimed that human activity is catastrophically warming the planet, the human cost of error is so great than many other scientists have become motivated to individually examine the evidence. Now, a total of more than 9,000 Americans with PhDs in science and therefore professional educational credentials that, on average, equal or surpass the United Nations 600 -- and a total of more than 31,000 Americans with at least BS degrees in science have signed a petition to the U.S. government specifically rejecting the United Nations claim that human use of hydrocarbon energy is injuring the climate. In fact, the 31,000 scientists state that carbon dioxide released by energy production is actually beneficial to the environment. See www.petitionproject.org.
These are 31,000 individual scientific evaluations. Each scientist actually signed his name and approved the conclusion -- unlike the key 600 United Nations participants who did not sign the U.N. report. Even if, however, the 31,000 had met and led each other to participate -- which they did not and even if the U.N. 600 had signed the UN report which they did not, the vote is 50 to 1, or 15 to 1 if we count only PhDs. Scientific truth is not determined by vote, but if the UN likes to vote, this way does not work for them either.
It is time to kill this counterproductive virus that has sickened American science and engineering, and get on with the job of expanding the American hydrocarbon and nuclear energy industries. To do less poses a terrible risk to America’s prosperity and to her future.” "
bloodagar wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:23 AM:
I merely want to see reputable citations going on here. I tend to read Science Journals...they can be extremely interesting as to environmental effects of numerous VARIABLES. I truly believe if you go to the source of a scientific report, you can answer your own questions and you will not be in need of anchors to process for you.
I don't usually get excited from news broadcasting...I used FOX news as an example because it was cited in the op-ed.
JustMy$.02, I appreciate your comment very much... and I will definitely look into some of these guys.
Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric Science MIT
George V. Chilinger Professor of Civil Engineering USC
Ian Clark Professor of Hydrology, University of Ottawa "
matt@newspeak wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:23 AM:
On the other hand, the largest concentration of people denying the phenomenon is here in the U.S.- who also happens to be the world’s current leading greenhouse gas emitter. We are most economically, culturally and- to a degree- ideologically dependent on burning fossil fuel and generating greenhouse gas.
So if we apply the principle of Ockham’s Razor- which is the most likely explanation: that there is a global conspiracy that would be unprecedented in its secrecy, efficacy and collusion- to use scientific consensus on the recorded build-up of greenhouse gas and noticeable climate change impacts concentrated to the last few years, to usher in a one-world government and raise taxes; or that a small but vocal minority in the most fossil-fuel dependent economy in history is in denial about a mounting global crisis that will call on them to make some profound changes in their comfortable lifestyle? "
matt@newspeak wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:24 AM:
Similarly, scientists from the University of Bern in Switzerland and scientists studying Antarctic ice-coring have determined that current CO2 concentrations are at their highest levels at any time in the last 650,000 years, and median temperature record data since 1800 indicates that the ten hottest years globally on-record have occurred in the last decade-and-a-half.
A Canadian Armed Forces “Sovereignty Patrol” at the North Pole this year discovered massive ice fissures running for miles, breaking up ice sheets 100 feet thick that have been frozen solid for 3,000 years or more. According to a scientist from the University of Ottawa surveying the break-up, the Arctic has 23% less sea ice in the last year than at any time in history.
In other words, all at the same time: scientists have isolated tangible evidence of profound build-ups of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere; global record high temperatures are concentrated in very recent timelines ; we empirically know that there has been a massive proliferation of greenhouse gas emitting technologies across the globe- from cars, to jet planes to power plants, to infrastructures dependent upon fossil fuels, to a population explosion; and that massive ice structures and snow concentrations are melting almost before our eyes. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:48 AM:
In 1976 the world was going to freeze over by 2000…the very ‘Physicist’ who first theorized ‘Man Made’ Global Warming is now one of the leading advocates against….of course with guys like Gore earning hundreds of millions annually suckering in his sheep, there will always be those with two mouths and one ear…… "
Sickothis wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:14 AM:
Common Sense wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:16 AM:
Answer this question, and the fallacy of the current global warming fear-mongering becomes clear to even those with only a basic understanding of science. "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:19 PM:
So where did it go? Underground. And yes, a basic understanding of science is all that is needed to understand where it is. And a basic understanding of science will let you know that burning these stores, which have been there for millions of years, must by definition move us closer to the higher carbon dioxide levels (and higher temperatures) from millennia ago.
So, please, Common Sense, instruct us on how if one is now armed with this knowledge the fallacy of global warming is clear? "
Dwayne wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:31 PM:
CO2 is the biological trigger that causes us to breathe. Mammals ca tolerate up to 3% CO2, and beyond that it would be like sniffing the foam from a Coke.
CO2 is no more of a pollutant than hydrogen.
Water vapor is the main distributor of pollutants, as in acid rain. In fact, rain won't form without some kind of pollutants for it to condense on.
Al Gore is getting rich brokering carbon credits, and the lefties who don't comprehend the emotional and unscientific global warning preaching are buying into it, hook line and sinker.
What's going to happen is that it is going to break our financial backs in this country, and that'll lead to the liberal re-distribution of wealth that the liberals are so fond of. "
msetty wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:44 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:54 PM:
It's all a conspiracy.
The truth is out there... "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:38 PM:
Yes, it's all about the money, the redistribution of wealth.
I'll redistribute both of my dollars when Al Gore redistributes his. I don't think this is an Al Gore get rich scheme, but a "keep Al Gore in the public view" scheme.
Both sides can cite scientific evidence till the cows come home. Line 'em up.
I'm on board with being good to Mother Earth, but I'm not on board with leftist social engineering schemes.
Well, the last two impeachment threads failed rather quickly, so now let's whack the global warming mole back into its hole. "
cab e-girl wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:13 PM:
dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:23 PM:
vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:01 PM:
So let's be clear about all of this. The Earth is adaptable and will recover from change. Humans on the other hand probably won't. We will not permanently damage the Earth but we very well could permanently damage ourselves.
Humans live within parameters of temperature which control resource availability such as water and food. It doesn't matter whether it's global warming or cooling. Our resource supply will still be affected. Our ability to adapt and respond with flexibility to a changing climate could save us from an uncertain destiny. Please don't try telling me that our climate is not changing. It's that type of inflexibility which will get us into deeper trouble.
We need to make changes in the way we live and in the amount of people who live here. If we are headed in the direction of fair global resource distribution, we better be very careful that it doesn't contribute further to a population explosion in some other region of the planet creating an even greater problem. "
vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:13 PM:
I am very annoyed when people with wealth jump onto the green bandwagon and yet continue driving monster SUV's and building monster homes. They both use excess resources for the purpose of building up excess ego. It's a message of "I'm bigger and better than you" either in their neighborhood or on the road.
Al Gore should probably not be the poster boy of the environmental movement. But a dislike of Gore should not turn you away from learning more about what's happening to our environment. "
rogers wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:48 PM:
I have a problem with the Oregon Institute's list of "scientists" who refute global warming. The minimum requirement is a BS degree. By today's standard, that is like a high school diploma was 50 years ago. The majority of signatories are medical doctors, not climate scientists. Many of the degrees are completely unrelated to climate science. You end up with maybe a couple of 1000 "qualified" skeptics.
By comparison, just the Union of Concerned Scientists, has over 200,000 members many who are Nobel laureates. Can you name one of your skeptics with that title? And please don't denigrate the Noble Prize for Science research with the political award (Nobel Peace Prize) that Al Gore received. There are tens of thousands of other scientists who belong to over 30 other reputable scientific organizations in the US alone. Now add those scientists in Europe, Asia and Africa who also understand that global warming is real.
Another issue about the petition project is Professor Fredrick Seitz, whose letter of introduction accompanies the application. He worked as lead consulting scientist for R J Reynolds. Want to guess what some of his conclusions were on tobacco smoke?
I find the links between conservatives, the religious right, too many American corporations and the current administration troubling. Yet they are the ones who scream about a green, socialist conspiracy. "
bloodagar wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:47 PM:
Dr. Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric Science MIT: I REALLY enjoyed reading his articles...too bad he is said to be in bed with Exxon, that will be attacked unfortunately.
Wendy Frew was quoted "Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community"...That was harsh from a newspaper reporter from The Sydney Morning Herald. "
russ wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:56 PM:
After 30 years in the science and energy business and graduate degrees in engineering, I claim logic on this issue.
The science in favor of AGW is sliding down the porcelain bowl. Solar cycles, which are not included in climate models, are proving to be a more important effect on climate. We are closer to cooling than to warming. Read the research.
This phony debate over man-made global warming and allowing our energy future to be hijacked by uneducated liberal politicians is endangering our future generations. "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:03 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:33 PM:
But nothing on Geology, Climatology, meteorology, oceanography, etc. Ah, you're the expert all right. "
bloodagar wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:34 PM:
kdbk wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:11 PM:
No matter what information is presented in the discussion of man-made global warming, those on the left will NEVER surrender this matter. They want to believe in it. They need to believe it. It's at their very core, this notion that man is bad for the planet and should be ashamed of his impact on it. "
areyouserious wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:24 AM:
So, I am a socialist because I believe in reducing, reusing, and recycling? I believe that you are crazy. Global Warming may or may not be a fact. THe fact is that as HUMANS we cause more damage to the EARTH than any (and this is for you Christians out there) of GOD's other creatures. Because we "SOCIALIST ENVIRONMENTALISTS" want to change that for the better we are socialists? I think you need to go back to college and get a grip on what socialism really is!
And BLOODAGAR;
Thanks for stabbing holes ALL OVER THIS ONE! Great comments (2nd post of bloggers) "
glenroy wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:38 AM:
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:58 AM:
russ wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:30 PM:
Actually in undergrad and grad school, and during my career, I worked extensively in geology, climatology, meteorology and environmental engineering. The are all interrelated. Never did oceanography.
Trickle, I said we were closer to cooling than warming. In fact, the research I have read says the the earth has cooled since 1998. Just part of a normal cycle. Read up on the unusual solar cycle we are in now.
I believe that by 2012, the global warming hysteria will have largely subsided. Only the true believers will remain. "
rogers wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:32 PM:
So show us the real science that says the earth has been cooling since 1998. Unfortunately you can't because that myth (data anomaly) has been resolved some time back.
Quit confusing legitimate science with that by FOX News pundits and corporate propaganda from the Heartland Institute which bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement". Exxon representatives have served as board members and their research arm likes to regurgitate false info from the American Petroleum Institute.
Contrary to free-market opinion, all those legitimate scientists who don't work for the Oregon Institute are NOT employees of Al Gore! They actually have opinions and research of their own and they are attempting to explain some of the mysteries around us.
The majority of them have no economic interest, they already have jobs with universities or government research organizations. They are looking for answers and that means seeking truth. Scientific "truth" is not biblical truth; it is subject to change as the the data becomes available. Science tries to give the best explanation at any given time based on the preponderance of evidence. The current preponderance of evidence shows the cause of global warming for the last half century is human related. Sorry if that doesn't square with your demand for an unregulated, profit-driven energy market. "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:24 PM:
russ wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:29 PM:
I am trying to understand your point on CO2. You are at least partly correct.
The earth and it's atmosphere is a closed system. Carbon that was here before is here now. The earth's surface is about 71% ocean. Here is the estimated carbon balance of the Earth:
CO2 dissolved in oceans (87.5% of all carbon), Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in oceans (7.1), Biosphere, all living organisms (4.0 %), Atmospheric CO2 (1.4%). That is where the carbon went.
The ocean is a gigantic CO2 sink, nowhere near saturation. CO2 in the ocean exists as carbolic acid, H2CO3 and CaCO3. There is a vast surplus of calcium in the sea. "
bloodagar wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:31 PM:
This grand cycle of evolution will culminate
winter solstice, December 21, 2012 AD.
Are you referring to the Mayan Prophesy as to why none of this will matter?
I love Religion and I love Science but...we have to remain vigilant with our own personal responsibility...I take it you are not of the Indigo persuasion? "
russ wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:39 PM:
I said that we are closer to cooling than warming. I said that the earth has cooled since 1998 as part of a normal cycle. We are now in an unusual solar cycle.
Are you saying that 2007 was a statistically significant data point? Of course not. 2007-2008 was one of the coldest and severe winters in recent history. Hecks bells, it's still snowing in Minnesota! Is that statistically significant? Maybe. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:02 PM:
As for the recent cool years, well you can't cherry pick a segment of the data. The average temperature from data as far back as they have been taking the readings is rising overall. Data from other sources backs that up. However, it's not just the rise in itself that alarms the scientists, it's the increasing rate of the rise in temperature. "
russ wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:10 PM:
Just doing the math, if ALL of the CO2 in the atmosphere were absorbed into the ocean, it would raise the absorbed CO2 in the ocean by 1.6% (slight).
Also, the higher the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the greater the driving force of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean water.
Doing another calculation, world oil production is 85 million bpd which translates to about 1.5 million tons/day carbon and 5.25 million tons/day of CO2, worldwide.
Where is all of that carbon ending up? Not much in the air. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:36 PM:
That's the facts Jack... "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:24 PM:
I don't know where you are getting your breakdown of the carbon on the earth (none underground in the form of coal, oil, etc.?), but the carbon we release isn't going to be absorbed by the oceans, much as you would like it to be the case.
Try as you might, you are not going to convince anyone who looks at the temperature data that we are "closer to cooling than warming". That is crazy talk. "
russ wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:01 AM:
Is that proof of global cooling? No. Does it support the Man-made global warming skeptics? Yes.
Oil and coal are included in the biosphere component.
The CO2 emitted into the atmosphere does indeed end up in the oceans.
Where do you think 5.25 million tons per day of CO2 go? It is not still up there. CO2, in the atmosphere, has increased about 50 ppm in the last century, as I recall. Glenroy had the stats recently. "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 3, 2008 9:54 AM:
Your comment on a low temperature is ridiculous. June was the hottest month on
record for Austin (since 1854). So does that nullify your data point? Trends are what matters, not daily temperatures or even one year. I don't see why you don't understand this.
Where did you get your breakdown of the distribution of carbon? Where did you find this. Oh, and are you telling me that NASA researchers are wrong about CO2
in the oceans? "
John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:42 AM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2008 11:23 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 3, 2008 5:57 PM:
russ wrote on Jul 3, 2008 10:46 PM:
CO2 is not toxic and normal cyclical temperature change is normal and expected. A century is a tick of the clock in the history of the earth. The earth will go through many cycles before it is doomed by man's presence.
We are closer to a cooling cycle than to an uncontrolled heating cycle caused by man . Climate change is more related to cyclical solar energy changes than the tiny effect of man on earth. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:16 AM:
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 4, 2008 7:50 AM:
CO2 is not toxic? Ask those who run their cars in their closed garages while their car spews out CO2 if too much CO2 in the air is toxic or not. Oh, wait, you can't because that is a way to commit suicide and those people die.
Closer to a cooling cycle? Keep repeating it and maybe it will come true. I keep repeating that I am close to being a billionaire. Both of our fact-less mantras have the same likelihood of being correct.
Climate scientists are in agreement (with a handful of deniers) that solar cycles are not driving global warming. However, you deny this fact too.
You don't comment on the calculations showing that the amount of carbon dioxide being produced is in the range of the increase our atmosphere has seen in the last century. You say it takes common sense to understand this is not the case. I assume you meant the person on the board here as real common sense and a casual look at real numbers tells a different story. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:49 AM:
russ wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:23 AM:
You threw me a softball which I will hit out of the park. CO2 is non-toxic. Every living creature exhales CO2 as a product of living . The organic food we eat breaks down to CO2, water, energy and a few other things. Your science creds took a big hit here.
Carbon monoxide , CO, is very toxic, especially in a closed garage. Combustion of hydrocarbons in the absence of enough O2 yields CO2 plus a very toxic amount of CO.
I assure you that the mass of the earth's atmosphere has not increased significantly from the millions and millions of tons of CO2, and other products exhausted into it. If it was, we would measure a change in atmospheric pressure at sea level. I have not seen any data to show that standard atmospheric pressure has increased from 14.696 psi.
Are you saying that the sun and solar cycles do not affect the earth's climate and atmospheric temperature? That is false. There are countless references available showing that solar irradiance goes through cycles. That is the main reason Mars and Earth have warmed coincidentally in recent history. "
russ wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:24 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 4, 2008 6:38 PM:
russ wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:01 PM:
Thanks for the reference. I agree with all of the quote except for the prediction of the future. There is insufficient evidence that future global temperature will rise especially due to man-made effects.
Earth's temperature has cycled for millenia through vast differences in atmospheric conditions. The change in CO2 content is minuscule, parts per million, of a minor component of the atmosphere.
Variable solar energy input to the earth is more important. Earth temperatures have cycled forever. "
TrickleDown wrote on Jul 4, 2008 11:03 PM:
I will grant you that I was incorrect in the death in garages as I was under the impression that the increased fraction of CO2 in the air was the cause of death, but as you correctly say it is the CO instead. My mistake. This does not, however, nullify the fact that CO2 is not a deadly gas if breathed at sufficient concentrations. In fact, OSHA lists 10% concentrations as sufficient to cause unconsciousness or death. But if you say it is harmless, I am sure you are right.
No one is arguing that the mass of the atmosphere has increased significantly. In fact, a rough estimate of the increase is given below. However the concentration of CO2 is increasing. You even gave numbers agreeing with this, and even if you deny it, increases in the CO2 levels are sufficient to cause death (100% CO2 isn't going to be good for us), so to think that intermediate increases would have zero effect is naive.
The sun affects temperature, yes, and the sun goes in cycles. However, the sun has been shown not to be responsible for the last century's rise in temperature. "
rogers wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:43 AM:
" Rogers…how do you define Main Steam? "
Hope this will do for a start on "main stream" organizations that concur on global warming in addition to the Union of Concerned Scientists:
* 1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
* 1.2 InterAcademy Council
* 1.3 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
* 1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
* 1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
* 1.6 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* 1.7 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* 1.8 Network of African Science Academies
* 1.9 International Council for Science
* 1.10 European Science Foundation
* 1.11 American Association for the Advancement of Science
* 1.12 Federation of American Scientists
* 1.13 World Meteorological Organization
* 1.14 American Meteorological Society
* 1.15 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* 1.16 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.17 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* 1.18 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* 1.19 American Geophysical Union
* 1.20 American Institute of Physics
* 1.21 American Astronomical Society
* 1.22 American Physical Society
* 1.23 American Chemical Society
* 1.24 National Research Council (US)
* 1.25 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
* 1.26 American Quaternary Association
* 1.27 Geological Society of America
* 1.28 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
* 1.29 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
* 1.30 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
* 1.31 European Geosciences Union
* 1.32 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* 1.33 International Union of Geological Sciences "
russ wrote on Jul 5, 2008 10:31 AM:
Reading the Lake Nyos tragedy, the description stated that the people were suffocated when CO2 came from the saturated lake. Suffocation is usually not toxic poison, it is lack of oxygen. If there was insufficient oxygen to sustain life, the people suffocated and died.
I enjoyed looking at this avenue of discussion. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 5, 2008 12:06 PM:
skeptic wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:00 PM:
russ wrote on Jul 6, 2008 5:59 PM:
In my opinion, the hysteria of man-made global warming is mostly about politics and weak-kneed Republicans, except for Sen. James Imhofe, R-OK.
The oil companies are in it for politics and also marketing. Some of the oil companies are trying to kiss up to Congress to gain favor to avoid onerous legislation.
The BP ads are sickening, they make it sound as though they will begin pumping alternative energy into your gas tank within a couple of years. That leads the uneducated public to believe that it will be easy. "They should be energy companies not oil companies", yeah, right.
The liberals on global warming have a big tax increase and more energy cost increases coming down the road. Just look at what the Europeans are trying now, largely as anti-American world leadership.
The Brits are beginning catch on and to revolt. Americans need to raise h... with our politicians as we did with illegal immigration.
Global warming and cooling is normal. It has occurred forever and will continue forever. "
russ wrote on Jul 6, 2008 6:30 PM:
Interesting...but inconclusive. They have just scratched the surface on carbon absorption by the oceans. I was surprised it confirmed my simple logic that the oceans are a gigantic effect on CO2 balance in the Earth's entire environment.
There is really very little data available on ocean temperatures at all depths and regions of the world, and it is changing all of the time. This was important in the beginning of their hypothesis.
The earth heats continuously from irradiance from the sun. Earth cools continuously by irradiation into space. Oceans heat from the sun , cool from irradiation to space and also cool from evaporation of water, which is a HUGE cooling effect.
I enjoyed the article and will continue to follow the research. "
bettye wrote on Jul 6, 2008 7:13 PM:
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:15 AM:
If we sat around and said nothing, these folks who bought into the global warming scam will get all kinds of expensive programs and taxes passed, and we will all have to pay dearly.
I know you would love for us to 'shut up' because that is the favorite thing leftists like to tell us to do. And why, if we believe these are social engineering and transfer of wealth schemes, should we shut up? Why do you want us to keep quiet about the fraudulent evidence given to us by Al Gore and others? I'm sure it would be very convenient for the leftists if they had a silent background to play on.
Sorry, lefties, do not expect me to shut up when I see something that is way up there on the scale of leftist reality bending. Ain't happening. "
4gnapan wrote on Jul 8, 2008 8:41 AM:
Global Warming is just that.. GLOBAL.
applying local data will result in huge variables of the results.
its not the warming of the land that matters, its the warming of the Oceans.
If the Greenland Ice Cap goes , It will get just a wee bit wet in New York City.. and every other coastal city in the world.
your first warning was the dissapearance of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica..
the second warning. The total melt of the Arctic Ice Cap expected this summer.
but I suppose you wont be satisfied till Greenland becomes green / brown / dirt.
at which point my house should be beachfront property .. :)
Enjoy. "
kevin wrote on Jul 8, 2008 7:21 PM:
environmentalists, suddenly its man's fault... "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 8, 2008 9:12 PM:
Now they can't even field a decent football team. Oh how the mighty have fallen! "
Sandra wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:04 AM:
kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:18 PM:
Wonder what those crazy cavemen were doing?
The current high temperature condition is the longest on record and we are overdue for a cooling cycle. Personally, I hope man made global warming is real. I DON'T want to deal with an Ice Age... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 12, 2008 2:29 PM:
When you get down to it this is a question of belief and trust. If my doctor tells me that I have high cholesterol and I need to change my lifestyle, I tend to believe her. She went to school to learn how to interpret the data she gets from my body. If I didn't trust her or I wanted to be sure, I'd get the opinion of another doctor. I'd be a fool not to pay attention if that doctor told me the same thing.
It seems to me that we've had our first, second, third, etc opinions by people who would seem to know what they are talking about. They are fairly consistently stating that the Earth is warming at an alarming rate and that Mankind's activities have a large part in that warming.
In reading the comments to this and other letter I haven't seen anyone say "Well you've changed my mind". Mostly it's games of "zinger", "gotcha" and "I got the last word". The bottom line is that I don't really care what think. You are entitled to your opinion.
Good luck with that. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 12, 2008 2:50 PM:
I actually know a some people who do research in the Earth and Environmental Sciences. They all pretty much agree that the Earth is warming and that the culprit is us. What they don't know, however, is what to do about it. Their job is getting the facts, not the solution.
The solution, for good or ill, is up to politicians and those who make policy. You are confusing the scientists with the politicians.
I personally think "Green taxation" is a silly idea. Rich people will pay them and continue polluting, poor people will ignore them and continue polluting. I doubt there is a solution, just bad times ahead.
However, if we just ignore or discredit the facts from people who do know what they are talking about, I think humanity will be in for a rude surprise. "
kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:06 PM:
Speaking of scientists making mistakes, it now appears that the fundemental theory of the OZONE HOLE was incorrect. Back to square one on how it forms and what causes it. How many Billions of dollars have we spent to eliminate CFC's because of their FLAWED theory?
And you wonder why people don't blindly believe everything they tell us? "
a teacher wrote on Jul 12, 2008 5:44 PM:
kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:26 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:05 PM:
glenroy wrote on Jul 13, 2008 9:31 AM:
And they still wonder why we won’t drink their cool-aid?
Anyway…hopefully the American public will someday realize the GW klan are the anti-drilling klan which is the anti-nuclear power klan… "
a teacher wrote on Jul 13, 2008 4:01 PM:
From the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (That's NASA):
"Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming. The continued rapid increase of the five-year running mean temperature exposes this assertion as nonsense. In reality, global temperature jumped two standard deviations above the trend line in 1998 because the "El Niño of the century" coincided with the calendar year, but there has been no lessening of the underlying warming trend. "
The only support for "The Earth is cooling" argument is a recent report on the Atlantic Multidecadel Oscillation. Some scientist believe that the normal fluctuation of the Atlantic currents will cool the Earth, but the net effect will be that there will be little rise in the Earth's overall temperature as the cooling will be canceled out by the Greenhouse effect.
Perhaps you should look beyond the Washington Times and Fox News for your sources of information. "
glenroy wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:44 AM:
The great myth of global warming is that the earth has cooled the last decade…that’s not my facts that’s the actual fact.
Just another example of a liberal who knows all the hypothetical facts…but ignores the actual facts….. Twenty some years ago the various sources you quote predicted an ice age by 2000.….if for no other reason than blind luck sooner or later you’re bound to guess correctly. "
a teacher wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:31 PM:
I guess you will insist on being a "dead ender". Stick your fingers in your ears and jump up and down.
It's not happening, It's not happening... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:58 PM:
Not really.
Newsweek did. National Geographic did. The NY Times and Time Magazine. Notice any scientific, peer reviewed journals? Just the mass media doing what it does, selling papers. At the time, the 70's, most scientists in this area were writing about global warming.
The following, reputable, agencies all state that the data and the science support global warming caused by human activity. NONE of them supported "Global cooling/imminent Ice Age".
-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
-Environmental Protection Agency
-NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
-American Geophysical Union
-American Institute of Physics
-National Center for Atmospheric Research
-American Meteorological Society
-The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) draws upon the work of over 850 peer reviewed studies.
You can return your head into the sand, or where ever else it was (I'm not judging). "
kevin wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:16 AM:
I found this quote in the article to be especially relevent to today's "crisis":
“Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”
But of course some will say that in the last 25 years they have since "mastered" the basic science...
yeah right.... "
a teacher wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:45 AM:
25 years is a long time in the scientific world and the weight of evidence supporting AGW is getting to be over whelming.
But I know you want to believe... "
plasticpinkflamingo wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:36 PM:
"Linking climate change to kidney stones seems odd, but it's based on the solid medical finding that people in warm regions develop the condition at increased rates. Sweating in warm weather removes fluid from the body and increases the salt concentration in urine, which can spur the growth of kidney stones.
By the year 2050, the new report estimates that a large chunk of Illinois will fall within America's "kidney-stone belt," which currently includes only Southern states. The Chicago area alone would see up to 100,000 extra cases each year, according to the report published Monday in a widely respected journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."
Solid medical finding? These people have no shame. "