To believe in Global Warming or, in the new nomenclature, “Climate Change”, you have to believe in three things:
1. That carbon in the atmosphere can create climate change.
2. That there is global warming and human behavior is its primary cause.
3. That the consequences will be catastrophic
[poll id=”104″]
32,000 scientists now dispute the claims of global warming. Evidence of “climate change” is consistently found to be misrepresented (the floating polar bears) and now, misinterpreted.
According to bloomberg.com
A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area.
Now, of course that won’t be enough for the dogmatists. “Giant ice sheets are still breaking off into the ocean!” Maybe we’ll be able to start farming Greenland again! But I digress…
A little further digging and you can find out that, in fact, the Global Sea Ice has not shrunk since 1979 but instead has grown by 22,000 square kilometers!
Now all those who claim to be interested in America’s status in world opinion and who believe in climate change have themselves in a catch 22. As long as they continue to blame western CO2 for death and destruction around the globe, green groups and third world governments will step up their demands that the West recompensate with wealth transfers and financial compensation.
But even this administration isn’t about to try that. Its a losing argument since developing nations like China will soon surpass us. Instead, they will fight back with “carbon tariffs“, which will create more hostility. Ultimately, there is now a growing risk that the whole global-warming scare is creating more anti-Western hostility and further loss of influence on the international stage.
Good job Democrats! Keep up the positive vibes! You’ll be flat on your belly like Libertarians in no time!
Global warming is a religion for Suckers!
“Climate Change” is continuous – it’s either going to get warmer or colder so prepare to deal with it. There’s no evidence to support the theory that we can maintain a constant climate or even modify a trend. We can try something and it might work or be a disaster, but the time scales are so long we’ll never know the results and our descendants won’t remember back that far.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus
The war on science continues.
Someone gift a subscription to that radical rag, the National Geographic to the global climate ostriches.
On the surface, saying that “32,000 scientists now dispute the claims of global warming” sounds impressive, right? That’s why those who deny global warming love tossing that into their diatribes. But a simple examination of these “scientists” reveals that they include vast numbers of scientists in fields other than climatology, meterology, oceanography, as well as physicians…just plain ol’ MDs. That’s what comprises the so called “Oregon” petition.
Now, when you begin to think about how many physicians and scientists of ANY specialty there are in this world, that 32,000 number starts looking, uhhh, pathetically small.
The only “war” on science is the one that pretends one viewpoint is above critique or is some kind of consensus. That is NOT science.
When Einstein postulated his theories, he sent them out to his greatest critics before publishing them. If anyone had criticisms, he went back to the drawing board.
And if 32,000 is small, using the Freedom of Information Act, it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report.
That is, uhhh, pathetically TINY.
Terry,
Climate change and vulnerability cannot be answered in a few sound bites. There are a number of factors. One has only to view Wikipedia for the basics:
I think what is of most concern is the influence that humans have on our environment and specifically on CO2. I don’t know how interested you are in actually having a conversation about this issue or if your mind is already made up, but here is a small synopsis of what is being proposed. It seems reasonable to me to look into this:
Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years.[15] Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 19th Century and accelerating since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of approximately 280 ppm in pre-industrial times [16] to around 387 ppm today.[17] The concentrations are increasing at a rate of about 2-3 ppm/year. [18] If current rates of emission continue, these increasing concentrations are projected to reach a range of between 535 to 983 ppm by the end of the 21st century.[19] Along with rising methane levels, it is suggested that these changes may possibly cause an increase of 1.4–5.6°C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming). Proposals by some scientists and international coalitions, aimed at attempting to prevent drastic climate change, have suggested setting goals to try to limit concentrations to 450 or 500 ppm.[20]
Crowley,
You are so intellectually dishonest. Did it not cross that grey matter of your that the IPCC is just ONE organization and does not represent the sum total of scientific consensus behind the existence of global warming.
Geesh, even a child can deduce THAT much.
There’s a HUGE article in today’s (Sunday) LA Times about the artic permafrost melting and releasing enormous amounts of trapped methane gas;. Here’s a link, with a video.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-global-warming22-2009feb22,0,2331840.story
Anon, take it easy on Terry; he’s being forth right. People form their views of the world by the information they receive, but when you receive conflicting info, you have to make a judgment call of who to believe. Those who get their facts from Fox News tend to have a very reasoned world view which is completely at odds with NPR listeners. Neither are irrational or dishonest; they’re forming their judgements beginning with a different set of facts they believe are true.
I declare the discussion is over…..Global Warming is REAL! I have proof! North America was under Ice During the last Ice age!
Red,
You say the war on science continues, but those Scientists who disagree, are the ones who are threatened, by losing jobs, and funding! Just in case it is real, I am going to buy some beachfront in Canada!
SAHS Teacher,
zounds you are accurate! I would not start my day with NPR if paid to do so! It’s an affront to individualism, classical laissez faire, and common sense. Other than that, we start out at the same place!
By the way, I am astonished that the poll is getting 52% NO.
Thank you for participating!
It is interesting that everyone quote numbers. The Marshall Islands where I lived for about a year in the 1970’s has lost approximately 20% of its land since I left. I have no idea if this is a being caused by “natural” or “unnatural” forces. It is happening. If you live where the effects of global warming are drowning your back yard warming deniers are hard to find.
Scenario 1: Climate change is real.
Response 1: We reduce fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions, and thereby reduce our impacts on the environment. We also have energy independence in renewables and no longer fund petrodictators/anti-democratic governments (Mideast, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc).
Response 2: Business as usual. We suffer from increased diseases, species extinctions, rising temperature & sea level, ocean acidification, etc. Correction- our children, not us
Scenario 2: Climate change is fake.
Response 1: energy-independence, new jobs and US technology edge on new energy sector. Plus, effects of high CO2 are mitigated (ex ocean acidification).
Response 2: Continue with the same old, same old. Species, ecosystems continue their decline, and we continue to fund terrorists.