Humans are Responsible for Global Warming
Side Score: 88
Side Score: 83
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is comprised of some of the top scientists in the world, last year released a report stating that with 90% certainty humans are to blame for Global Warming. Specifically, the increase in emissions of greenhouse gases are to blame for the increase in temperatures, threatening our planet.
Fossil fuels like methane and carbon dioxide trap heat near the surface, a process known as the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but human activities, like the burning of fossil fuels, can pour enormous volumes of these gases into the atmosphere, raising the planet's temperature and destabilizing the climate.
"The report found it was "likely" -- "more likely than not" in some cases -- that manmade greenhouse gases have contributed to hotter days and nights, and more of them, more killer heat waves than before, heavier rainfall more often, major droughts in more regions, stronger and more frequent cyclones and "increased incidence" of extremely high sea levels.
The report noted that 11 of the last 12 years have ranked among the 12 warmest years on record with the oceans absorbing more than 80 percent of the heat added to the climate system. Add in the melt-off of glaciers and sea ice and sea levels are rising.
The IPCC predicted global temperature increases of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 and sea levels to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 58 centimeters) by the end of the century.
An additional 3.9-7.8 inches (10-20 centimeters) are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues," the report stated."
While 90% is not completely conclusive, it is very evident from the data gathered that there have been extreme increases in the amount of carbon dioxide found in the environment over the past 30 years. Studying the carbon dioxide levels in ice cores shows that while CO2 concentration is cyclical, there has been an enormous increase in the amount of CO2 found in these ice cores that is well outside of the range of "normal cyclical fluctuations".
According to the The European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA)
"Levels of CO2 are now 27% percent higher than at any point in the past 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores.
The study, which provides more evidence of human interference in the climate system, pushes back our greenhouse gas record by 210,000 years and now encompasses four glacial cycles."
This disproves the theory that these are "cyclical CO2 fluctuations". Any person that has taken Stats 101 can tell you that being this many Standard Deviations outside of the Mean indicates there is something anomalous about the CO2 levels we are currently experiencing. Since the increase in fossil fuel consumption unmistakably increases the amount of CO2 found in the atmosphere, and increases in CO2 unmistakably are directly correlated to increases in temperature, one must draw the conclusion that Humans Are Responsible for Global Warming
6 years ago | Side: Humans cause Global Warming
The US government also says your privacy is secondary to their national security. And it also once thought that man made pollution wasn't to blame for global warming. Because good policy progresses in a non linear fashion, how can we say that what the US government says is right?
6 years ago | Side: No
""The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments.
The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
"Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change."
Global warming is real, we have almost certainly helped cause it, and I'm sorry, but the dangers are too great and most likely too near to sit around arguing down every last person that wishes to keep their head in the sand in order to continue living their absolutely unsustainable lifestyle. There really isn't time to wait around, while the icecaps melt, the Gulf Stream gets disrupted, and the fuel supply runs low, for every last person to get out of their Hummer and realize that if you want the world to be any kind of decent for human habitation, for your children and their's, your lifestyle needs to change.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
This comes from the the Wikipedia article on Global Warming. I've included the mentioned sources at the bottom:
The average global air temperature near the Earth's surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations" via an enhanced greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.
These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.
Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-02-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02. “The updated hundred-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74 °C [0.56 °C to 0.92 °C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6 °C [0.4 °C to 0.8 °C].”
Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. (2007-05-07). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 690. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-05-20. “Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings”
Ammann, Caspar; et al. (2007-04-06). "Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from ransient simulations with the NCAR Climate Simulation Model" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (10): 3713–3718. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605064103. PMID 17360418. “However, because of a lack of interactive ozone, the model cannot fully simulate features discussed in (44)." "While the NH temperatures of the high-scaled experiment are often colder than the lower bound from proxy data, the modeled decadal-scale NH surface temperature for the medium-scaled case falls within the uncertainty range of the available temperature reconstructions. The medium-scaled simulation also broadly reproduces the main features seen in the proxy records." "Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of ≈0.2 °C (≈1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism.”
 The 2001 joint statement was signed by the scientific academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico, and South Africa. Professional societies include American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London, Geological Society of America, American Chemical Society, and Engineers Australia.
The Science Of Climate Change. Royal Society (May 2001). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change. Royal Society (June 2005). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
Joint science academies' statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (May 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
Don't fight, adapt. National Post (December 2007). Retrieved on 2007-11-18.
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change. Royal Society (March 2005). Retrieved on 2007-11-18. “"However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points"”
Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science Magazine (December 2004). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
It's all around us... plain as that. Look at all the different gases we release into the Atmospher, Nucuelar, Arisol, Carbon Dioxide, and Other products created by Humans. If we didn't use so much of these products we would not be in this state of crisis. If we limited are resources our gas prices would stay at low rates, if we were outside and exercising then we would use lets energy at the houses and cut down on Nucuelar power, stop driving so much start walking cut down on exhast fuems which become our nice Carbon Dioxide problem, and stop cuting down the whole rain forests because no more plants to absorb the carbon dioxide.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
i am glad fuel prices have gone up it makes you think next time you just want to drive around. carbon dioxide is a gas yes that is common yes. but carbon dioxide kills us and it kills most other living things. other than plants which need it and if we keep choping down the trees the crabon dioxide will increase and if we have more carbon dioxide than oxygen then we will die!!! and i am glad they don't dig for oil anymore!!!!
have you seen what it looks like??? big ugly holes in the ground which shouldn't be there!!!!! the fuel and gasoline is reacking our plant by the looks of it, the smell of it and the sea levels. i am in australia!!! which is a island and in the last 20 years it has been covered by water because of the rise of sea levels probably in the next 20 years it will be smaller then smaller every year we keep contributing to the increse of the gas! the ice is melting which is because it has gotten hotter and that is because of the carbon dioxide. and there isn't enough plants to keep it under control. the balance of the gases has changed which is a bad thing. if you are a scientis you should understand that if something is unblanced it will fail or become harmful. like the food chain!!! if there is an unbalance then we are screwed. that is the way of the universe. by fuel and oil we are creatating an unbalance in the universe!!!! and man is therefore th blame!!! our technogly is getting better yes but our life style is getting worse. which is pretty bad if you think about it. i mean yes we had tv's and cars and stuff like that but we are creating plastic which can't be reused. plastic is killing our animals in the ocean which is a big sorce of our food. also our life style is getting worse because of the increase in weight. our bodys are becoming fatter. that is because of our life style. if you are overweight than your diet is unbalanced and an unbalance is bad. bad for you kids because they could have heart problems which inturn can be past down. which inturn will lead us to being a worse world in the next 30 years.
BALANCE IS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!
the key t success as they say is a balance! there fore our increase of carbon dioxide is bad because it creates an unbalance in the atmopher!!!!!!
and for scientist to not under stand that then there teachers must not have done a good job!!!! for a sceince you have to think realsiticly and you ovisly arent!!! you can't see the whole picture which inurn is your own fault. you must be very closed minded!!!!
it doesn't take thousands of doctuments to point it out it just takes a good mind and and whole grasp on science and the world we live in today!!!!!!
so for you to say man did not do it you must be wrong! man were bulit to destory that is the reality. that is man that is how we were built!!!!!
6 years ago | Side: science my ass
Corinne, did you know that earth is a closed system? And as such, all the carbon in the atmosphere today, has always existed on earth? How can you then say that we are unbalancing the earth, given that we're not actually adding anything to the system?
On another note, if the scientist does not understand, is that not a reason to investigate, rather than to demand that teachers teach better? Surely it is not the teacher's fault that they do not yet have the full truth. It is the role of the scientist to discover, to question, rather than to accept truth.
Furthermore, I'm sure that as an atheist, you realise that thousands of documents may not actually prove anything, other than that thousands of documents exist and may say the same thing.
On another note, how is this an argument tht proves global warming is anthopogenic?
6 years ago | Side: Science
One small note: the earth is a closed system in the sense that no material (or close to none) is added to it. But it's an open system in the sense that energy (largely from the sun) flows through it.
The atheist argument is quite fascinating, especially because just recently I've been looking more deeply into various worldviews.
The question of whether global warming is anthropogenic is very real: the majority of scientists agree that the globe is warming up; they just aren't sure how much humans have to do with it.
6 years ago | Side: Science
Previous studies have observed rises in both Arctic and Antarctic temperatures over recent decades but have not formally attributed the changes to human influence due to poor observation data and large natural variability. Moreover, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that Antarctica was the only continent where human-induced temperature changes had yet to be detected.
Now, a newly updated data-set of land surface temperatures and simulations from four new climate models show that temperature rises in both polar regions are not consistent with natural climate variability alone and are directly attributable to human influence.
The results demonstrate that human activity has already caused significant warming, with impacts on polar biology, indigenous communities, ice-sheet mass balance and global sea level.
"This is an important work indeed," said Dr Alexey Karpechko of UEA's Climatic Research Unit.
"Arctic warming has previously been emphasized in several publications, although not formally attributed to human activity. However in Antarctica, such detection was so far precluded by insufficient data available. Moreover circulation changes caused by stratospheric ozone depletion opposed warming over most of Antarctica and made the detection even more difficult.
"Since the ozone layer is expected to recover in the future we may expect amplifying Antarctic warming in the coming years."
Conclusive proof that polar warming is being caused by humans (www.physorg.com)
5 years ago | Side: yes
I believe that humans are responsible for global warming. I believe in this because by polluting the atmosphere you are sending carbon emissions in to the atmosphere. These emissions get trapped heat up the earth. Many things heat up the earth. They include: Burning fossil fuels, Driving cars etc factories deforestation and many other things impact on the earths climate. If global warming isn't reduce then the future generation could be in serious threat.
4 years ago | Side: Yes
Are humans responsible? I think the definition of responsible has something to do with affirmative response to something. If we did not cause global warming all together, we are surely not helping. Global warming has to do with near surface and water temperature. How can one say that we aren't causing that?
I live in Bakersfield Ca., one of the worst cities in America for smog and air pollution. During the day I cannot see the mountains that are only 24 miles away because of the smog. If you look straight up, you see a relatively blue sky, if you look outward, you see a belt of bright white light. It also is about as hot here as it is in Death Valley on a hot day. You leave Bakersfield in any direction and it's cooler. It's all because we sit in a sump of a valley that collects all of the smog from the cities north of us in higher regions of the valley. Every year it seems like, we get less and less rain, and there almost seems to never be an actual winter. It's sort of like fall, but a little cooler, the leaves are falling all winter... and then there's spring, when it gets extremely hot and then cooler, and then hot again, and cooler, and then hotter... etc forever.
I remember as a kid, only about 15 years ago, when it would freeze overnight and rain for days... We even had snow once... but that's only a memory now. It's been getting hotter every year.
If that's not proof enough for me, I don't know what is. So I at least blame how it is here on human activity.
Global warming though has been linked to so many things, and to some degree, is normal... but I'm sure we're not helping, and we won't be able to unless things really, really change... but they won't, so in that respect, we aren't "responsible" for global warming.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel writes:
-You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predicta calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son Ralph, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming. The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and voila, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.
May I stop here for a few historical notes? First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented. And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s. Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue. Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless. Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been. So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide. And, that is the rub. Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.
Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures. By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.
So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming. Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.
So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth? That is the most amazing part of the story.
To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force. Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure. Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming. It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard. After all the media loves a crisis. From Y2K to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.
So who is going to go against all of that power? Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express. That is one crowded bus.
I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue. On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.D's. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC. There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year. One hundred of us gave presentations. Attendance was limited to six hundred people. Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming. And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner. He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com. Following the publicity of my position from Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. I get hundreds of supportive emails from them. No I am not alone and the debate is not over.
In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme. That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet. The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win. The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.
I am very serious about this issue. I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.
The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy. The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughout the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.
So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks. Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy. We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.
So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization. Not because global warming is real; it is not. But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.
I love this civilization. I want to do my part to protect it.
If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.
My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global
Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet,
6 years ago | Side: No
I have but one request: Cite some sources.
Coleman claims to have dug through thousands of pages of research papers; you expect me to take him at his word? He says Earth has cooled for ten straight years. The University of East Anglia says otherwise - are they falsifying data, all part of the conspiracy as well? I don't buy it, not yet. He hasn't cited a single source or linked to a single website, just blown about a bunch of hot air. He's a convincing writer, I'll give you that; but good writing and good arguments aren't the same thing.
Global average temperatures 1850-2007 (hadobs.metoffice.com)
6 years ago | Side: Yes
I am really quite surprised you cannot find any peer reviewed scientific papers asserting the reality of anthropogenic warming, here let me help:
Now there are peer reviewed papers asserting that global warming is not man made but its really all about concensus, the overwhelming majority beleive it is occuring.
2 years ago | Side: No
That copy and pasted speech was horrible. You want to blame environmentalist for high gas prices and paint the entire scientific world in some giant conspiracy?
Gas prices are high because the Iraq War ended the lucrative oil-for-food program, disrupted production lines, and created uncertainty in the World's cheif oil producing region. Global warming activists seek to reduce the demand for oil, which logically would REDUCE oil prices, not raise them.
To argue that global warming gets unfairly positive coverage by the media is an absolute laugh riot. Out of the thousands of questions asked by the media in our current presidential race, something like eight of them have been about global warming. This despite being a major issue of concern for hundreds of millions of Americans.
Look, even oil companies are finally admitting that global warming is a legitimate concern. Even the Bush White House has reluctantly admitted it.
You will find what small number of places where drilling has not been allowed in the US are for environmental concerns other than Global Warming. But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good argument.
Carbon dioxide is only .036% of the atmosphere (making it the fifth most abundant gas.) There is absolutely no logic behind the argument that says a gas that is 36 parts per million cannot have an effect on things.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
I agree with your petroleum prices comment, however, the comment on the presdential race, to me at least, is less than valid. Consider this, surveys show that 50% of americans think the economy is the no. 1 issue that candidates should address, but debates minimally cover this issue, some giving as little as 5% of total screentime to such an important issue. To me, the american media is a joke. Half is too liberal and the other half is too conservative. Sure it's balanced, but there's no independants
Carbon dioxide, if it does contribute to the greenhose effect, contributes minimally. Dihydrogen monoxide vapour is estimated to provide 90-95% of the total warming. What are you gonna do to stop this dangerous gas? Indeed, it can cause severe burns, frosbite and asphyxiation! Surely we must ban it!
6 years ago | Side: No
Whilst I disagree with you in regards to whether we are responsible or not, and to the majority of the arguments you made to support your view, I just wanted to say that you have obviously put a lot of work and thought into your argument and attempted a good overview of the critiques of man-made global warming.
I'll try to get together some kind of argument in the near future in regards to why I believe a lot of your points are invalid, and to try and put forward some of the stronger arguments supporting man-made global warming.
Also, I wanted to say that I 100% agree that the criticisms of global warming and climate change are not being publicised enough (but only because I believe we need to have a serious debate about this and come to a definitive conclusion, rather than simply saying everyone who disagrees just doesn't "understand it.").
But in the mean time, bravo on a well put together and thought out argument.
6 years ago | Side: Praise where praise is due
Here a few of my quick thoughts on Mr. Coleman's rebuttal to Al Gore:
"He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs"
Okay, so these are three things we know are already happening, but they are presented to us like they are outlandish fear mongering.
" . . . during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes."
The suggestion is we're in an "interglacial period" now as our climate is naturally warming, and life on earth thrives. Sounds great, right? Except that we know that life is not flourishing, nearly every ecosystem on the planet is in decline. By his own example, polar bears are suffering, coral reefs are diminishing and life within them disappearing, frogs in Australia are dying, etc.
"Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?"
While this is true, it is not indicative of a long term trend. Climate science is extremely complicated and there are many, many factors that affect overall climate temperature. Our current plateau seems to the result of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
"Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it."
This is categorically false. That Mr. Coleman would even suggest that we believe only Carbon Dioxide to be the main factory in global warming is laughable. Methane is a contributer for example, a gas that has increased from the large cattle farms. Soot from our emissions has increase the rate of melting of snow pack and ice up north which in turn puts more water vapour in the air and causes temperatures to increase.
I'm going to stop there, since I'm at work and should actually get some work done.
6 years ago | Side: Yes
I agree with you 12,000%. This global warming story is really just a bunch of nonsene but would you believe me if i told you that there a high possiblity that fossil fuels actually resulted from volcanic activity. Read some these points.
1. Trace of carbon 14 found in coal.
2. Large quanties of various trace elements such as germanuim found with these fuels.
3. Evidence of volcanic activity creating hydrocarbons.
4. Wide spread distrubtion of mud volcanoes all over the earth espically in areas where alot of natural gas or petroluem is found.
5. 86% of all mud volcanoes emissions are methane.
6. Large significant evidence of petro-fuel resouviors found around and at volcanic sites.
7. NASA launched a satellite to a planet or moon in the solar system that found a the planet abundant an full of natural gas without any life present.
If my theory proves to be something that would mean fossil fuels aren't rare or the source of global warming.
2 years ago | Side: No
This guy can say what he wants, but at the end of the day his opinions must be weighed against those of his peers. The vast majority of climate scientists believe that humans are indeed responsible for Global Warming. Until this guy manages to convince them, all of his ranting just amounts to a lot of "bla bla bla."
6 years ago | Side: Yes
Is society not based on a voice for each and every citizen? Who are you, as a single person, to degrade this man's words to that of "bla bla bla"? Everyone has his/her own opinion on the subject and should be given respect for his words. And these "scientists" in which you are referring to are devided among this issue. In fact, more biologists and ecologists are against the theory that humans are the cause of global warming.
6 years ago | Side: No
Sure the climate is changing, but it is caused by the sun.
Yes, CO2 levels are increasing, but they do so AFTER the temperature rises, not before, and therefore cannot be the cause of the warming.
A warm, wet earth is preferable to a cold, dry earth.
CO2 is not a pollutant and it contributes very little to the Greenhouse effect. Water vapour is by far the most significant greenhouse gas.
The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem.
Friends of Science (www.friendsofscience.org)
6 years ago | Side: No
Global warming is a very serious and important even that is happening in our lives. But can humans be responsible for it? NO! We are claimed to be hurting the earth, but with what?!?! Materials that were found on the same planet that we are harming? Are humans part of the problem? Yes, but so is Mother Earth herself. She gave us oil, all we did was refine it. She gave us metal, all we did was put it to use. Humans, are not the cause of Global Warming, but if you ask me, we should be the cleanup crew who stops it!
6 years ago | Side: No
No we can't be> Earth is 4.6 billion years old. In the past it was over 90 degrees F. Today it isn't even 60 yet so if life surived that what is a chage of not even 2 degrees going to do. The earth is way older then we are and we ahve only been able to affect earth for less then 200 years.
6 years ago | Side: Al Gore is a crackpot
HELL NO!!!! I WANT VERY EVERYONE THAT WROTE YES TO READ MY RE-POST.
People claim global warming is happening because we're having the worst drought in years, the largest forest fires, the hottest temperature and the most the destructive storms. Lies lies and that right more lies. First off a good quantiy of the western part of america is a desert and they're pumping water into it to grow food. What do expect to happen when you try to grow food where you can't and beside this whole drought is just probably a cycle of the event the Dust Bowl. Secondly these huge forest fire are suppose to happen i took a class in Environmental Science and the book clearly said the when such an environment reaches its climax a forest fire will eventually occur to recycle nutrients. So global warming has nothing to do with forest fires they'd been happening and will continue to. Finally the heat and storms it should be know by now the earth goes through several weather and temperature patterns such as El Nino(or whatever they call it). Interestly enough most people seem to forget that the earth's orbit is not round. It's elliptical so there will be times where the earth will be much closer to sun and alot farther especially during the Equinox. Beside if global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels wouldn't all the plankton and other micro-organism suck up all that co2 and deposit it at the bottom of the ocean. Honestly i don't think that fossil fuels even come from ancient organisms because if so why does coal the oldest form of all fossil fuels contain traces of carbon 14? That would only mean that coal is only about 50,000 years old. Also fossil fuels have been found to contain large amounts of trace elements such as germanuim and mercury. What plant or animal you know that has every existed to intake germanuim or mercury? In addition volcanoes are known to have large reservoirs of petro-fuels. It is fact that 86% the emmisions released from mud volcanoes is methane. I think someone is pulling a curtain in front our face with this global warming nonsense.
Dispute me if you can.
2 years ago | Side: No
Although JimmyB put it into much too simplistic words, he is right. In the 1950's, there were no polar ice caps! And the theory of how the earth was made alludes that global warming was necessary for the ice age to end. We as a people are not entirely responsible for this epidemic, but we can be the solution to it!
6 years ago | Side: No
Maybe I'm not reading that right, but in case you actually meant that there were no polar ice caps in the 1950s, you are absolutely incorrect. There were then, there are now, have been for thousands of years.
Baffin Island Ice Caps Shrink By 50 Percent Since 1950s (www.sciencedaily.com)
6 years ago | Side: Yes
what's funny is how there are 30,000 independent scientists who specialize on environmental issues who wish to debate this issue with the "environmentalists" that claim that man is responsible for global warming, but, they refuse.
what's also funny is how these people don't seem to know about the rapid climate change that occurred before civilization.
i just think how funny it is that people really believe that man is actually powerful enough to destroy the earth.
6 years ago | Side: No
4 years ago | Side: yes
The argument FOR anthropomorphic global warming is feelble. "Is the earth heating up?" yes. "Is there more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was before?" yes. "Oh well then CO2 is causing the earth to warm up and we must spend billions of dollars reducing our CO2 emissions." That's ridiculous! We have been warming up for the past century, not because of CO2 but because the earth is at its HEATING UP stage. Whether there was more or less CO2 in the atmosphere or not, we would still be warming up.
You might say we're causing it to accelerate? NO WE AREN'T. The rate the earth warms up changes all the time!
It would be much more convincing if 'believers' could answer these questions correctly:
Why is it that we were still alive in the middle ages even though the earth's temperature was a lot warmer?
Why is it that the earth continued to cool even though there was more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere several thousand years ago?
4 years ago | Side: No
Please read my post about fossil fuels they may not actually be made by ancient organism. I read a story about NASA sent a satellite to some planet or moon in the solar system and found that the planet have tons of natural gas on without a ounce of life in sight.
2 years ago | Side: Yes