GLOBAL WARMING QUESTIONS
1. Why have 3 of our closest planetary neighbors experienced the same proportional temperature changes we have? Are there SUVs and cow farts on Mars?
2. Why have measurements made by the most accurate devices known to man today, such as satellites and probes that are placed throughout our oceans that periodically submerge themselves deep in the ocean to measure the oceans temperature, all tell us that the planet has not warmed in more than 10 years?
3. Why back in the 1930s were we being warned about global cooling, then in the 1950s it was global warming, then in the 1970s it was global cooling, and now warming again? If you go back to the 50s and 70s and read publications like Newsweek you would see they use the same key phrases to convince people, like "scientific consensus".
4. Why every time they find a "glitch" in software or other data gathering systems or devises it's always in favor of warming? For example: When just last year the satellite software used to measure sea ice in the arctic was discovered to have a "glitch". When the "glitch" was corrected it showed 500,000 more square miles of ice. (I think that’s about the size of Texas) bringing the ice levels to that of around 1970. When the model used to produce the infamous "hockey stick" graph was released to the public it was found to make the "hockey stick" pattern no matter what data was entered. When corrected the "hockey stick" magically disappeared.
5. Why, is a majority of the public convinced that the the planets temperature is directly affected by the amount of carbon in our atmosphere when in fact the data shows, contrary to Al Gore's mocumentary, that the carbon levels rose AFTER the planets temperature, by about a few hundred years?
6. Why in the distant past, before man even existed, was the Earth so warm it had no ice at all at either poles? Maybe "dinosaur-made global warming"?
7. Why as recently as 10,000 years ago was there a quarter mile thick sheet of ice year round right were I sit?
I do not see any of these questions as being unreasonable, and in fact see them as relevant.
The only way anyone could still believe all the "man-made global warming" hype they must hand pick the data they choose to "believe". After this recent email scandal which exposed massive fraud committed by scientists whose data was used in virtually every major global warming study, there is no way any scientifically thinking person could not at least question everything they have been led to believe.
Many, many more scientists are changing over to the ANTI man-made global warming, oops I mean ANTI climate change side. They are not going the other way. I predict that in about five more years the general public will realize how this "man-made global warming" crap has been completely debunked, despite the reporting by the media and the many political groups, and this will be a huge I TOLD YOU SO!
This is THE biggest scientific scam in the history of science! Why is the media not reporting it as such?
Hi! You asked me on Facebook to comment, which I appreciated. It takes an open mind to ask someone to disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteI write as a layman who's followed the issue for a little over 20 years; I've taken some environmental science courses, but I'm not an expert, I've just spent a lot of time reading debates among experts. It needs to be understood that any ambitious young climate scientist would *love* to prove global warming wasn't real: the best way to get famous is to be the brilliant guy who showed everyone else was wrong. If it was a "scam", new PhD's in the field would be screaming their proof from the rooftops of the news studios.
As recently as '03 or so, there were prominent eco-scientists who felt global warming was a distraction from more important issues; since then, the quality of the evidence has improved enough to win pretty much all of them over. The great explorer/writer Tim Flannery was one of these recent converts, and his book "the Weather Makers" would be my pick as the best introduction to *why* scientists have accepted global warming as truth (and how it occurs and what it means). He's an excellent explainer, and writes with enthusiasm; it's an enjoyable read, despite the difficulty of the topic.
Point-by-point to your post:
1) isn't true. Urban legend.
2) isn't true, but it's a misunderstanding of a truth: that the highest mean temperature of any year on record remains 1998 (a severe El Nino year). What it misses is that of the thirteen hottest years on record, going back to the mid-1800's, ALL of the last twelve years are among those top thirteen, which is in fact dramatic proof of a warming earth (and 2010 may well beat 1998's record, based on performance so far).... See More
The New York Yankees won 114 games in 1998, and haven't matched the total since -- but they're still, by far, the best team in baseball in that time.
3) No, you would never have read about a "scientific consensus" for global cooling -- indeed, you can read the link Ben sent earlier. You would read A) that a few scientists thought maybe the earth might B) be on a long-term, tens-of-thousands-of-years cooling trend. That theory never won acceptance, but it might, for all I know, still be a plausible hypothesis. It simply has nothing to do with the fast, dramatic, human-caused trend right now.
4) The "hockey stick" thing from the 1970s was about reporters far more than scientists, but it's from before my time; I don't recall the story well. The usual pattern of scientist error, at least in the last decade, has been to *underestimate* the problem. Even with the glitch adjustment, arctic ice is shrinking faster than it should be, and Antarctic ice has broken off before it was supposed to. The permafrost wasn't supposed to be melting for a long time yet, but some of it is starting to. There's uncertainty in all directions, and the worst case scenario may literally not be survivable, which is why we hope to avoid that one if at all possible.
5) Carbon levels have been rising for over a century, and the temperature has followed. The cause can go both ways, actually -- positive feedback -- but in this case we know for a fact that people have been ejecting gigatons of heat-trapping gases into the sky. So yeah, the default logic of cause-and-effect in this case is that the carbon and methane are causing the warming.
6) The earth has warmed and cooled many times for all sorts of solar, geologic, and positive-feedback-cycle reasons. But the only times it's ever warmed or cooled anywhere near this fast have been mass-extinction periods -- such as the cooling that extinguished the dinosaurs.
7) Because the earth was colder then. It's much easier for species to survive a change over millennia than a change over a century.
cheers,
- Brian Block
1. NOT urban legend! Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. Heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s compared to the maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor found there had been widespread changes similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
ReplyDelete2. You are basing your answer here on completely bogus data. Data that has now been admitted to being bogus by the head of East Anglia’s (CRU) Phil Jones. "...the difference in warming rates for the periods 1860-1880, 1910-40 and 1975-2009 is statistically insignificant." Jones even admitted that "...there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995; that in fact, global temperatures have been trending to the downside since January of 2002."
3. In the Times you may not have, but, in Newsweek and Time you would have read "scientific consensus" for global cooling. I have found and read the articles myself. The language is very similar.
4. "The hockey stick thing" is not from the 70s, it is from Al Gore's mockumentary. The fact is there is no "fast, dramatic, human-caused trend right now." None, Nada, Zilch!
5. Respectfully, you are wrong. If you take the actual graphs Al Gore used in his mocumentary and overlapped them instead of showing them above and below each other you will see that carbon levels followed temperatures NOT the other way around. Weird how most people when showing two sets of data representing the same time frame usually show them in the same graph instead of above and below each other. Intentional? I think so.
6. Again, you are basing your answer on the same "hockey stick", admittedly bogus data, that has now been completely dis-proven. The planet is not warming at a greater rate than it has many, many times before, even before man existed, as now stated by the man who was in charge of the group of scientists who put that bogus assertion out there to begin with.
7. Why are you completely avoiding the obvious point being made by #6 & #7? Earth has gone from one extreme to the next without the presence SUVs and major industry. What we are experiencing now has happened many times before. And in fact it has gotten much colder and much hotter at greater rates in the past than it has recently.
You are right that the understanding of earth's weather systems has improved -- been transformed, really -- in the last few years. But if you look at all the newest technologies and see the data they are producing you will see that most all of it goes against the "man made global warming" theory. Most all of your previous post to answer my questions was based on all the old data. I spend a lot of time finding studies that politicians quote. When it comes to global warming the first thing I do is look at the date. I suggest you do the same.
Thanks for the debate. I love this stuff!