Global Warming - How Real Is It?

[jumnien]

Hopefully, the foolish economic policies of George Bush will have slowed the US and world economies so that the rampant world growth that was so prevalent during the Clinton and most of the Bush regime will not continue to impact the sensitive balance of Mother Nature. The ridiculous policies of the junta should help out in keeping Thailand's growth down. There has been some tremendous good news in the past week in the stock markets of economic cooling which also bodes well for the future.

[brahmburgers]

The original post asked about Thailand. I would venture to say Thailand will only adapt to changes when the smelly stuff starts hitting the fan. They've proven inept at planning intelligently beforehand. Just look at the new airport built in a swamp region, and every year Chiang Mai and Bangkok flood, and every year it's met with wringing of hands (and towels) but not much tangible engineering to avert further/future crises. Floods have been happening for as long as people have been running around in these parts - several thousand years at least - so why the big surprise each year when waters rise, and thousands of people get 'taken by surprise.' I see it even in my adopted little village up here in C.Rai: people building new homes in flood plains. If I were to say something to them, they'd either laugh it off, or get offended/angry at the uppity farang who has the gall to put his nose in their business.

As for signs, yes: trees blooming weeks/months earlier, avocados from Burma used to be seen in the market only in late August thru early October. Now it's March and there are still avos in abundance - 1st year that's happened.

[elkangorito]

Tighter controls on the stock markets would help but I'd prefer to get rid of them altogether.

[GuestHouse]

Oh Robski...

Look at it this way.

At the end of the second world war, archeologists and historians where making all sorts of claims about civilizations having fallen because of wars. There's a classic example of this in the early research on Troy - claims of war, and rationing based on what 'Viewing evidence through the thinking of post war Europe' - War and destruction where the theme of the day, so the collapse of all civilizations was due to, you guessed it, 'war'.

Then we had the cold war, simplified clash of democracy v communism. The views on why civilizations crashed where changed again, yes you guessed, it was failure to be democratic.

During the height of the civil rights movement, disparity of rights was seen as the reason civilizations fell.

In the 80s and 90s monetarism was the new creed and the crash of civilizations was down to monetarism.

Now we have environmentalism.

And it's not only that: Where do you get the evidence that civilizations where more or less environmentally friendly.

The Native Americans railed against archeological evidence that there forefathers drove thousands of Bison, mass killing only to use a small percentage of the kill - It ran contrary to their self image of 'environmentally' friendly.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Who was it that said, when people stop believing in God, they’ll start believing in Anything.

Perhaps we should just put our fate in the hands of God?

I guess I had better explain.

The assertion is, and it was not my assertion, that people need something to believe in and when they stop believing in God, they’ll start believing in anything.

Environmentalism is, I suggest, the ‘Something’ of the moment.

That there are many merits to environmentalism is doubtless.

But go back and read what I said about why I think environmentalism is a new religion, that bit about heresy/telling others how to live their lives/high priests etc.

[tuky]

The Earths climate is cyclic, which has now been replaced by the 'global warming' idea.

There is nothing we can do about it, it is going to happen whether we burn fossil fuels, whether a cow farts X amount of whatever each dayor not.

The amount of 'global warming' gases that we purge into the atmosphere each day is only a fraction of what the Earth herself sends out. ANd that in itself is only a fraction of what scientists say will cause global warming as we know it.

Ocean levels have been raising, in the last hundred years they rose and fell but they did rise by an insignificant amount, which will fall again.

We are not talking the last 1 hundred years, weather patterns occur in thousand year cycles and if we happend to be in the wrong part of the cycle then woe be to us. We cannot blame global warming, it is total chance that we are here at this time.

Ok, lets use our AC less, lets drive a hybrid car...that will surely reverse nature.

[Robski]

Oh Robski...

Look at it this way.

At the end of the second world war, archeologists and historians where making all sorts of claims about civilizations having fallen because of wars. There's a classic example of this in the early research on Troy - claims of war, and rationing based on what 'Viewing evidence through the thinking of post war Europe' - War and destruction where the theme of the day, so the collapse of all civilizations was due to, you guessed it, 'war'.

Then we had the cold war, simplified clash of democracy v communism. The views on why civilizations crashed where changed again, yes you guessed, it was failure to be democratic.

During the height of the civil rights movement, disparity of rights was seen as the reason civilizations fell.

In the 80s and 90s monetarism was the new creed and the crash of civilizations was down to monetarism.

Now we have environmentalism.

And it's not only that: Where do you get the evidence that civilizations where more or less environmentally friendly.

The Native Americans railed against archeological evidence that there forefathers drove thousands of Bison, mass killing only to use a small percentage of the kill - It ran contrary to their self image of 'environmentally' friendly.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

Who was it that said, when people stop believing in God, they’ll start believing in Anything.

Perhaps we should just put our fate in the hands of God?

I guess I had better explain.

The assertion is, and it was not my assertion, that people need something to believe in and when they stop believing in God, they’ll start believing in anything.

Environmentalism is, I suggest, the ‘Something’ of the moment.

That there are many merits to environmentalism is doubtless.

But go back and read what I said about why I think environmentalism is a new religion, that bit about heresy/telling others how to live their lives/high priests etc.

Oh GH! I know your a dog with a bone when you get into it, but i don't want that to derail the thread, certainly this thread is worthy of the fuller explaination that you have put forward, and my point was that your initial was an attempt a debunking anyone who believes the world faces enviromental problems.

Civilisation can be ended by war, but some have ended by poor enviromental management, one outcome being war over scarce resources, the Maya and Easter Island are two examples that we could learn by, they were two pockets of civilisation that wiped themselves out because of enviromental factors, Japan is one of the most heavily forested areas in the world, but it could have ended up as barren as Easter island if they hadn't had the foresight to see the damage deforistation can have on water tables, soil degradation and climate, they are surrounded by abundent seas but they would have over fished and polluted them if they hadn't had the foresight, they did all this over 200 years ago and there enviroment is still stable and productive.

You quote something from the end of WWII, but the world population in 1950 was 3 billion, the population now is over 6 billion, the planet is becoming a small pocket of civilisation, an island with limited resources and signs of enviromental impact.

I don't see any fundamentalism in enviromental issues, the most rabid rejection of facts comes from those who debunk enviromentalism.

I've had my say and I expect some witty retort from you because I have yet to see you accept anyones opinion but your own, but thats all I have to say to on the matter, I think there are plenty of other members here who would like to comment.

Edited March 5, 2007 by Robski

[GuestHouse]

my point was that your initial was an attempt a debunking anyone who believes the world faces enviromental problems.

I know what your point was. I just dispute it on the basis that I do not debunk anyone who believes the world faces environmental problems.

I do however, as I have stated, believe that environmentalism is fast gaining the trappings of a religion.

I also think that the biggest diservice done to environmentalism is that of bad science, and in environmentalism, there is a huge amount of bad science.

[tijnebijn]

How a common guy can say that people who do vast research do bad science??

It just blows my head,we are just amateurs compared with people who have the brains and knowledge to judge things like this.It is like having a TOEFL in English and thinking you are a professor ,and telling him his spelling is wrong!!!

[altman]

interestingly none of you have mentioned the un report on climate change sponsored by and ascribed to by a hundred or so countries and a thousand or so scientists. (i could find a link to the actual figures but you can do it as well as i)

better to rely on personal opinion and hope than to finally accept that, 'hey. we are in deep doo-doo'.

and as far as trees not growing above the 'tree line'. having grown up in a mile high city i can tell you the reason for that is not lack of co2. it is the lack of oxygen. (or so i was taught many long years ago, and continue to believe today. pending authoratative science to refute it)

and what does GWB wars of aggression have to do with GW? it diverts attention and funds. it also keeps the attention and funds flowing in the direction that most benefits GWB et al. at the expense of you, your family, and your children.

oh. that's right, none of you mentioned your children either.

party on

[GuestHouse]

OK, so I'm common guy, nothing wrong with that I hope.

But let's just have a look at an example of the Environmental Lobby and Bad Science, and let's take a view from specialist.

The example here is the relationship between climate change and Mosquito born disease.

Let's Talk Mosquitoes

This is not a denial of climate change, and you'll not catch me denying climate change.

But it is an example of how the environmental lobby have and continue to use bad science, often with the result that ineffective action is taken in dealing with climate change and the consequences of climate change.

Oh I should add.

When I look back at the last twenty years of my working life, almost every project I have been involved in has had a substantial componant of environmental engineering. Many have had the sole purpose of meeting new or changed environmental legislation - Environmentalism has been very good for my bank balance.

My guess is the rest of my career will be spent working on ever increasing evironmental legislation, with ever increasing personal profit.

So I have nothing against environmentalism, it it bad science and half backed environmentalism I don't like.

Edited March 5, 2007 by GuestHouse

[PaulUSA302]

In science we were taught that the sun was expanding and would one day expand so much that it would make it too hot to live on the planet earth....

Now our planet it a little warmer than it was 100 years ago and so are the other planets around the sun.

I wonder what I can do to change that? Maybe if I drove less... then Mars will cool down a little?

Here are few links with a different take on Global Warming.

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims New Documentary...

and

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Set to Rock Climate Debate...

and

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic...

Edited March 5, 2007 by PaulUSA302

[pete_r]

[Joke mode on]

Global warming? Just increase the air conditioning. Problem solved.

[Joke mode off]

Edited March 5, 2007 by pete_r

[A_Traveller]

A key potential issue for Thailand would be any change in the global oceanic conveyor belt.

This could be triggered by changes in salinity {melt water for example}.

Since the climate is an emergent property of a system of such complexity that we are still struggling to understand it, and that we as a species are only able to survive in a very narrow environmental band ignoring increasing evidence of 'turbulence' within the climate strikes me a foolish in the extreme.

Regards

[lannarebirth]

I certainly agree that the earth goes through warmer and cooler cycles, and I don't know how much man has contributed to the acceleration of this current warming cycle. I do know that globally man is putting far too many pollutants into the air, oceans and land. I hope pollution issues get separated from the GW issue, so that pollution will be adreesed for healths sake and not get bogged down in the politics of GW.

[solent01]

and as far as trees not growing above the 'tree line'. having grown up in a mile high city i can tell you the reason for that is not lack of co2. it is the lack of oxygen. (or so i was taught many long years ago, and continue to believe today. pending authoratative science to refute it)

Not sure what your saying here, are you saying trees produce their food from Oxygen? Cause if you are thats not what I was taught a long time ago, try this instead....

Trees like all plants carry on the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants utilize the energy from the sun to make sugar from carbon dioxide in the air. The next time you look at a tree think about the fact that what you see was once nothing but a bunch of carbon dioxide gas. The general equation for photosynthesis is pretty simple:

CO2(carbon dioxide) + H20 (water) ----------------> C6H12O6 (sugar) + O2(oxygen)

Which is why any one with green fingers talks to their plants, the plant takes in the CO2, and produces O2, good int it.

[qwertz]

and as far as trees not growing above the 'tree line'. having grown up in a mile high city i can tell you the reason for that is not lack of co2. it is the lack of oxygen. (or so i was taught many long years ago, and continue to believe today. pending authoratative science to refute it)

Not sure what your saying here, are you saying trees produce their food from Oxygen? Cause if you are thats not what I was taught a long time ago, try this instead....

Trees like all plants carry on the process of photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is the process by which plants utilize the energy from the sun to make sugar from carbon dioxide in the air. The next time you look at a tree think about the fact that what you see was once nothing but a bunch of carbon dioxide gas. The general equation for photosynthesis is pretty simple:

CO2(carbon dioxide) + H20 (water) ----------------> C6H12O6 (sugar) + O2(oxygen)

Which is why any one with green fingers talks to their plants, the plant takes in the CO2, and produces O2, good int it.

Don't forget osmosis, without it most plants wouldn't last a week. There could be wars over water in the future, when the oil is all used up.

[klrsmith]

Well ok, if we are going to point fingers I think you will find the Chinese are also not too clean.

Spot on - and if anyone's not clear on why the US and Australia refuse to sign;

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

...On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[44][45] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"

and...

...Nonetheless, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has refused to ratify the Agreement and has argued that the protocol would cost Australians jobs,[11] due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. By way of example, industrial growth within China is expected to increase pollution within 9 months, and even if Australia were to shut down all of its coal fired power stations it would not negate this increase.[citation needed] Further, the Government takes the view that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions; the Australian government has recently pledged $300 million over the next three years to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

For China and India to get a free pass instead of stepping up to fix their problems now, before they move in to the #1 and #2 positions is bogus.

And just to make it clear - had there been no global warming in the past, we would all still be living in the Ice Age No? :-D

Regards,

Kevin

Edited March 5, 2007 by klrsmith

[solent01]

Ahhh of course, Osmosis is a physical process in which a solvent moves, without input of energy, across a semipermeable membrane (permeable to the solvent, but not the solute) separating two solutions of different concentrations. I could go on but think we are getting

[edd]

How a common guy can say that people who do vast research do bad science??

It just blows my head,we are just amateurs compared with people who have the brains and knowledge to judge things like this.It is like having a TOEFL in English and thinking you are a professor ,and telling him his spelling is wrong!!!

Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas and has helped produce the "green" world agricultural revolution, according to an Australian climate expert.

Rob Carter, from James Cook University in Townsville, said the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent decades had boosted agricultural crop yields.

"Carbon dioxide is the best aerial fertiliser we know about," he told the Victorian Farmers Federation in Morwell late last week.

Professor Carter, a marine geologist, is research professor in the university's Marine Geophysical Laboratory.

He said the Kyoto Protocol would cost billions, even trillions, of dollars and would have a devastating effect on the economies of countries that signed it. "It will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050," he said.

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body."

To understand climate change, it was necessary to look at the longer record, he said.

Through an examination of material taken from deep below the ocean floor, marine geologists could study layers of earth's history similar to the way a tree's age could be determined by tree rings.

"We are in a relatively warm period today," he said. "But 20,000 years ago, it was as cold as it has ever been - that was the peak of the last glaciation."

Professor Carter said that over 2.5 million years there had been 50 glacial and interglacial periods. Of the past 400,000 years, the earth had been colder for 90 per cent of the time, with briefer warmer periods of about 10,000 years.

He said the earth was now at the end of a warmer period, and reputable climate-change scientists agreed that the climate was going to get colder. The debate was whether it would take tens, hundreds or even thousands of years to occur.

On a shorter time scale, Professor Carter said the earth had broadly got warmer in the modern period, from 1860 to 2000, although it had also been warmer in Roman and medieval times. There had also been a Little Ice Age between 1550 and the 19th century, when the Thames used to freeze over.

A cooling trend took place between 1940 and 1970, when temperatures began to rise again, reaching a peak in 1998. "This coincided with the biggest El Nino in the 20th century," he said.

However, research by the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain had shown that the average global temperature had declined since 1998.

Professor Carter said greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide were not causing the earth to warm up. On both annual and geological (up to 100,000-year) time scales, changes in temperature preceded changes in carbon dioxide, he said. This was true even in the famous 1960-1991 graph showing rising amounts of carbon dioxide.

Professor Carter said that without the natural greenhouse effect, the average earth temperature would be minus 18 degrees Celsius, compared with the average of plus 15 Celsius that had nurtured the development of life and civilisation.

Water vapour made up about 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide was a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 per cent of the total greenhouse effect, he said. Of this, only 0.12 per cent, or 0.036 degrees Celsius, could be attributed to human activity.

Climate had always changed and "always will", he said. "The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it."

Posted by me a lowly interested person. Ed Jackson MSc.

[qwertz]

Ahhh of course, Osmosis is a physical process in which a solvent moves, without input of energy, across a semipermeable membrane (permeable to the solvent, but not the solute) separating two solutions of different concentrations. I could go on but think we are getting

What? Water shortage is off topic? Tell it to the Ethiopians, or aren't they on this troubled planet?

[solent01]

of course, just we are straying from the original post is all. But you could add Issaners also

[Mid]

[sabaijai]

Well ok, if we are going to point fingers I think you will find the Chinese are also not too clean.

Spot on - and if anyone's not clear on why the US and Australia refuse to sign;

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

...On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[44][45] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States"

and...

...Nonetheless, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has refused to ratify the Agreement and has argued that the protocol would cost Australians jobs,[11] due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. By way of example, industrial growth within China is expected to increase pollution within 9 months, and even if Australia were to shut down all of its coal fired power stations it would not negate this increase.[citation needed] Further, the Government takes the view that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions; the Australian government has recently pledged $300 million over the next three years to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.

For China and India to get a free pass instead of stepping up to fix their problems now, before they move in to the #1 and #2 positions is bogus.

And just to make it clear - had there been no global warming in the past, we would all still be living in the Ice Age No? :-D

Regards,

Kevin

Eye-opening details I never knew about.

However it is fairly certain that all of our fossil fuel burning activities are not having a positive effect on the planet, but the only question is what percentage of the effect is purely down to us?

That is indeed the question. So far all I see is a simple correlation being drawn between certain human activities and the average temperature changes. As any student of the scientific method knows, a simple correlation is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a causal link. You need to account for all other factors, difficult to do when there's only one earth in the experiment.

Whatever we do to cut down greenhouse emissions and pollution we should do for all kinds of reasons. While doing so, we must also recognise that the earth's natural climatic systems will go through cycles, some of which may not be conducive to the survival of the human species. Then again would it be so bad for the earth to be rid of its most self-destructive species?

Great thread, love hearing both sides (could do with more scientific data supporting the argument for human sources of global warming to spice it up a bit).

[edd]

Quote

Great thread, love hearing both sides (could do with more scientific data supporting the argument for human sources of global warming to spice it up a bit).

OK you asked for it

Global Warming: Why Can't the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?

BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story

"Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

"Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

"Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

***********************************************

TEN SECOND RESPONSE: How many scandals does the mainstream press need before it starts routinely running stories through fact-checkers?

THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Faulty "news" stories like this one, which mislead people all over the world, are one of many alarmist global warming reports by the news media that do not reflect a consensus of scientists. What is more alarming than what scientists genuinely know about global warming is that a media outlet as influential as the AP would run a wire story this faulty, and that so many news editors would be gullible enough to run it.

DISCUSSION: A brief refutation:

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.(and is still only 0.03% of the athosphere)5

Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7.(and is still only 0.03% of the athosphere)).

The Earth does not have "world governments." It doesn't even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.

If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9

Edited March 6, 2007 by edd

[sabaijai]

Quote

Great thread, love hearing both sides (could do with more scientific data supporting the argument for human sources of global warming to spice it up a bit).

OK you asked for it

Global Warming: Why Can't the Mainstream Press Get Even Basic Facts Right?

BACKGROUND: The Associated Press ran a global warming story

"Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

"Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

"Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

***********************************************

TEN SECOND RESPONSE: How many scandals does the mainstream press need before it starts routinely running stories through fact-checkers?

THIRTY SECOND RESPONSE: Faulty "news" stories like this one, which mislead people all over the world, are one of many alarmist global warming reports by the news media that do not reflect a consensus of scientists. What is more alarming than what scientists genuinely know about global warming is that a media outlet as influential as the AP would run a wire story this faulty, and that so many news editors would be gullible enough to run it.

DISCUSSION: A brief refutation:

Quote 1: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year..."

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).2

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).4

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

Quote 2: The AP said: "Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."

Fact: Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does.(and is still only 0.03% of the athosphere)5

Quote 3: The AP said: "Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."

Facts: Most of 20th Century global warming occurred in the first few decades of that century,6 before the widespread burning of fossil fuels (and before 82 percent of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed in the 20th Century7.(and is still only 0.03% of the athosphere)).

The Earth does not have "world governments." It doesn't even have even one, as the United Nations is not a government, but an association of nations.

If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not."9

That's evidence supporting the lack of positive correlation. So there is no evidence of positive correlation?

[jamesc2000]

So global warming is a myth?

Smoking dosen't cause cancer?

Chocolates doesn't cause tooth decay?

There is no hole in the ozone layer?

CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

The seas are not rising?

US and Australia were right not to sign?

Saddam has WMD?

The oceans are so big that fish stocks are not being depleted by factory ships?

Only a few trees are being cut and not the size of France every year?

Its also not getting hotter in BKK and floods are natural?

[Jimjim]

I keep seeing people saying that summers being hotter are a result of global warming. However, the big thing with global warming is that the global temperature has gone up about 1 degree since 1860. So, are those guys in Isaan really feeling that one degree? Probably not. It's not something you're going to notice in the day-to-day temperatures. El Nino and similair phenomena have a much larger impact on the weather than global warming. I think it's very easy to hear the world "warming" and think that the day-to-day temperatures have been seriously affected, but they haven't. It's enough for yearly statistics to change, but you're not really going to notice it by feeling how hot it is every day.

Global warming is more about more intense and frequent storms, rising sea levels, melting polar icecaps, etc.

Is the globe warming? Yes. Is it the result of greenhouse gases? To some extent. Some studies show humans are definitely causing every problem under the sun and others are more conservative. How political are all of the studies? I don't know what to believe.

Now, I think this issue worldwide, especially in the U.S., needs less politicizing and emotional arguments and more objective study in the next couple years.

And that's what I think about global warming.

Edited April 24, 2007 by Jimjim

[sukanyacondo]

Sea levels arent rising they have been measuring it in the Maldives for years but of course "visit the maldives now" before it sinks is great for increasing tourism. The biggest greenhouse gas is water FACT.

Dont fall into the mass idea its our fault, remember the masses once said the earth was flat!!!!!!!!!!

However I do not dispute a rise in global temps but I do dispute the reason why, it aint us we are insignificant.

I do not believe in dumping cack anywhere you can mind and do try to deal with rubbish in a responsible way where possible.

Remember its a massive business now and if you apply for a grant to study the squirrells of the Uk you wont get it but if you stress studying the squirrells and its effect on global warming you will get it!!!!!!! Dont be fooled or bullied. I really hope Im still herein 50 years to see all the crap debunked and laid to rest.

[jamesc2000]

Sea levels aren’t rising?

That means them Dutch fortifying their sea walls and building floating houses are really just wasting they their time and money! It all just paranoia isn’t it. The Dutch really have nothing to worry about and should just stop worrying about nothing really! Silly people!

"visit the maldives now! before it sinks is great for increasing tourism!”

I always suspected that it was the Venetians tourism adverting companies rather the Maldives that made up this Venice is sinking, see it now! and the seas are rising nonsense! Venice will be around 100 years from now!

“but I do dispute the reason why, it aint us we are insignificant.”

I have never heard a more balanced and sensible statement than this! There is too much frenzied nonsense sprouted by those “save the world” types!

Don’t people know that every day there are 1000 new cars in Beijing? What is a mere 360,000 new cars a year just in Beijing when there are already millions of cars in US and in Europe?

Anyway water is the biggest greenhouse gas not CO2 so how much pollution can cars cause? Must be negligible!

And with these new budget airlines and millions of people who never flew now taking to the skies and more airlines buying more new, bigger and less polluting planes, fewer people are driving cause they are all flying and that must be a good thing! Cause planes pollute less than cars!

Anyway millions of new cars on the road and millions more flying, how much pollution can that cause? “it definitely ain’t us! we are insignificant.”

[shochu]

I think we need to separate human and geologic issues.

There may be a trend toward warmer weather, but I am not convinced it has to do directly with us. Sure we contribute, but the earth must be thought of as a living breathing organism that has its own timeline and its own systems in place.

The earth is on a 22,000 year cycle and every 11,00 years it reverses and causes among other things the ice age and the magnetic direction to flip. There was a mini ice age about a 1000 years ago and it wasn't caused by us. And wasn't it a generation ago everyone was going crackers about another coming ice age? The oceans and the earth sucks up way more gases than we could ever produce. And so it seems likely that we are now 11,000 years since the last major ice age, we are problaby peaking and will see some nice hot temp's and with the added human intervention maybe even hotter temp's, but I think things will turn colder - but not in our lifetimes. Also, the sun spot activities do way more than all the exhaust from our cars and industries combined and for even more facts - livestock contributes an exhorbitant amount of gases.

I think with hotter temp's we would see first an expansion of the oceans then a contraction from evaporation.

Just my thoughts having studied some geology courses in uni.

And with all this carbon trading going on isn't it a nice way of kick starting a new industry out of nothing with everyone fearmongering about the end is near.

Another fact: one lives in a large twenty room house using so much energy the monthly bill is larger than most people's McMansions yearly bills - and another is living in a small four bedroom house with amazing technology that is eco-friendly and taps into its environs for its energy needs.

One is owned by Gore the other is by Bush Jr. - who owns which will surprise you!