Global Warming: Fact or Fiction = Democrat or Republican
Lisa | Jun 27, 2008 | Comments 24
Forget that scientific research totally supports it, and the rest of the world is trying to find ways to combat it: In the United States, global warming is debatable.
We’ve thrown science out the window, and especially at government levels, it’s become purely a political issue. The “fact” vote is avidly democrat supported, while the “fiction” vote is avidly republican supported.
My opinion - this is another case of the current, oil controlled republican administration keeping its head in the sand while they line their pockets with still more cash.
Here are some recent news stories from both sides. What’s your opinion?
Is global warming fact or fiction?
Fact
Global Conference on Global Warming.July 6-10, 2008 in Istanbul, TurkeyNorth Pole Could Be Ice-Free This Summer, Scientists Say. CNN -June 27,2008Global Warming Sends Plants Uphill. CNN -June 26,2008The Photographic Documentation of Global Warming. Ongoing at World View of Global Warming
-OR-
Fiction
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute- March 2008
The Heartland Institute is a politically conservative, free market-oriented public policy think tank started in 1984.
Global Warming Evidence Piles Up. American Conservative Daily -June 10th, 2008
Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the New Ice Age. National Post -Feb 25,2008
Predictions for 2008, a 100% Chance for Alarm. NY Times -Jan 1,2008
Related Posts
Related Websites - what is climate change is real or Global Warming Swindle Yes today we are asking ,what is climate change is real,is it fake, are we doomed, or is it another ploy to protect to...
- The Media's Top 10 Economic Myths You can read about them at the Business and Media Institute. Here is the list: The US economy is in recession - yet it is...
- Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansenand the Truth of Global Warming Dr. James Hansen is widely regarded as the leading climate...
Filed Under: Alternative Energy • Commentary • Sustaining Our Planet
Linda
The Passive Dad
J. Money
Matt
Mr. GoTo
Well, I consider myself an independent thinker so I do think that global warming is real. My dad actually works for The Energy Foundation (ef.org) and their work is trying to reduce the effects of global warming around the world. However, last time I visited my in laws they were complaining how hot it was getting, and I suggested that it was global warming. To my surprise, they said it’s something invented by Al Gore and it’s not real and it’s just a cycle in the earth’s climate. I was like..baffled. I mean, I am a Christian, and fairly conservative, but I believe in science, and having traveled around the world I see the effects of global warming. So yeah, I dunno. It’s weird that this issue is so political and religious all at the same time.
You know, as far as Global Warming goes, I can’t see it as ANYTHING beyond a NATURAL cycle turned into another way to blame the US for the worlds problems. Forget religion, let’s look at this from a complete rational and scientific eye. IF GW is caused by mankind, explain (sorry to go this far out) the evidence of GW on other planets in our solar system? Perhaps the occupants of those worlds are doing the same as we are? No, unlikely, lets look at another possibility, the orbit of the Earth. It isn’t a perfect circle, either it’s orbit around the sun nor its orbit around its own axis. So, at certain times of the day, month, year, century, millennium it is closer or further away from the largest source of heat energy in our system, the sun.
Let’s look at the sun (not directly, that could cause blindness). We know that the solar winds have in the past caused whole electricity grids to go down (I believe it was Colorado in the 1990s or was it the 80s). We know that solar flare ups can cause satellites to stop working (happens more often than NASA wants to admit), but we also know that solar winds play a big part on our weather system AND the overall temperature of this small planet (and every other planet too). So, where is the data that also brings the solar emissions into play with respect to GW? Where is the data on where this planet stands in it’s orbit from a long-term view? Do we even have that data? How would we get it?
And finally, I have trouble believing that the forecasts of doom and gloom from global warming will happen in ten years when my weather man can’t even get tomorrows weather correct! Don’t they get the same data from the same satellite and computers?
GW is so real, they changed the name to ‘Climate Change’! Why was that? Oh, probably because had they started with Climate Change, it probably would not have been met with the resistance we see with GW, of course, CC isn’t as scary as it admits a possible/probable CYCLE and what good does that bring to politics?
Sorry for going on and on, but that is how I see this, ‘luckily’ this wasn’t about ‘political correctness’ ’cause I would have written a BOOK about THAT!
I agree with WalterTH3rd wholeheartedly, anybody who believes in this man made global warming scam is just a very gullible person who would probably believe anything.
Thanks for everyone’s input on global warming. I see we have a variety of opinions. I’m still in the “GW is real” camp, but you disbelievers make some good points. L
According to NASA, it’s not a scam. And I quote:
“The main reason that scientists think humans caused warming since 1950 is that none of the natural processes that influence Earth’s climate have changed enough during that time period to explain the warming.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/
Sandras last blog post..Entrecard Inbox Feed
Sorry guys, but it’s time for a scientist to weigh in…
WalterTH3rd brings up a lot of interesting, if not irrelevant points. Firstly, as for the warming on other planets, that argument falls apart on 3 fronts. #1, not all the other planets (and their moons) are warming. Uranus is actually getting cooler. #2, for the 6 planets (and/or moons) in which warming is happening, there is a an explanation for each. For some, it’s their summer “season,” (a season lasting several hundred years in one case), for others, tidal forces… All have very well-documented, well-understood reasons. #3, the largest nail in the coffin: We’ve been taking measurements of the sun constantly for several decades now, and the solar output has NOT increased. It just follows its natural 11-yr cycle, as always.
#2 — and this is my specialty because I have a master’s degree in orbital mechanics — the fact that the Earth’s orbit is not a perfect circle has nothing to do with GW. The eccentricity of the orbit (a technical term meaning “not-perfect-roundness”) is very slight, and it hasn’t changed at all in the past century, which is when this GW thing started. In fact, we’re closer to the sun by several million miles in the North hemisphere’s WINTER — it’s not the closeness that matters, but the interaction with the atmosphere and the tilt. Venus’s surface is hotter than Mercury’s, despite being twice as far from the sun!!! These are things you learn in a place called “school.” You should try it sometime.
#3 - I take offense at a few of the statements here. Firstly, NASA (or, more specifically, NOAA) publishes all anomalies related to all its satellites in an enormous database, for free, online, so saying it “happens more often than NASA wants to admit” is total bullshit - stop pretending to know what you’re talking about! As to the question of solar radiation causing global warming, that was looked at and determined not to be factor. Let me try to explain it briefly, but once again I suggest you just take the time to go learn something.
If the sun, which has not been putting out more radiation in the past 30 years, was somehow the cause for global warming, then the increased radiation would warm up the entire atmosphere. When really big solar flares and CMEs happen, the increased radiation heats up the atmosphere and it expands, causing drag on the low orbiting satellites. (That’s how we lost Skylab over Australia.) On the contrary, if GW was being caused by human-made greenhouse gases instead of the sun, then ONLY the lower atmosphere would be getting warmer. Everything from the stratosphere up actually gets COOLER with more greenhouse gases. (It’s basically because they trap more of the reflected light, though the full explanation is much more technical.) So what does the data say? http://www.wunderground.com/education/strato_cooling.asp
It’s cooling. Looks like it’s us after all.
Walter, I’m sure you fancy yourself pretty smart, but to anyone who’s actually studied this, you just sound idiotic. Stop making this into a “political discussion” just because YOU want it to be. Facts are facts. The Earth is undergoing severe climate change, due to greenhouse gases caused by us. Period.
Climate change is a naturally occuring process ever since the earth had formed. Get it right people! GW is a pure socio-economic phenomenon, and Al Gore pounced on that oppurtunistic ‘THEORY’ to gain money and encourage support for the Democrats and their environmental views. POLITICS AND SCIENCE DO NOT MIX! We we’re all fooled. Search both sides. I was once a believer of Global Warming until I saw the other side and found out the truth.
Michael, thank you for suggesting school, so I will. In school, elementary grade, I believe 2nd or 3rd, we learned that rain fall comes from trees. So, if the number of trees in a given area is lessened, the amount of rain is also lessened. That covers Mt. Kilimanjaro’s lack of snow fall since the amount of logging has pretty much taken away the forests that fed the snow and rain for that area, making it appear that somehow, GW was the cause when in fact, it was over logging. Let’s also look at a certain river that apparently dried up from a change in climate in Russia (or was it China?) What Mr. Gore forgot to mention was that river’s course was changed on purpose to feed a plant. The climate had nothing to do with that, it was, again, GREED.
I am sure I could keep going, but since this is getting tedious, let me remind all of you of the ‘Global Warming’ scare of 1929-1969, a time when all the most respected scientists and journalist agreed that the Earth was warming up and doom was on the horizon, right up until 1954-1976 when the earth was now said to be COOLING towards a new Ice Age. By the way, those same scientists and journalist agreed on that as well.
So tell me, Michael, who to believe THIS time? Are these scientists any better for saying the same predictions as those before them? In five years, will we start hearing about how this planet is cooling towards an ice age, and nobody will remember what was said today?
I guarantee this; when it happens, it will be worth another mint to whomever is first to ’scientifically prove’ this AGAIN!!!!
Oh, here is an interesting statement-
‘U.S. Funds Nearly $4 Billion in Climate-Change Research
Global warming is a good business to be in for government funding. More than 99.5 percent of American climate change funding comes from the government, which spends $4 billion per year on climate change research.
Researchers use this money to promote doom and gloom reports on what man is doing to his world.
The bigger and more catastrophic climate change cataclysm becomes, the more it is justifiable to take more money and exert more control – a cycle that feeds itself. Scientist and environmentalist Stephen Schneider explained these tactics.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” (Discover, October, 1989)
Environmental lobbying, a $1.6 billion industry, puts increased pressure on government to spend more on global warming and take more control.
Calls for higher taxes, more regulation and greater government intervention in private businesses increase as environmentalists propagate scarier scenarios.’ - from BMI 2006 - http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_climchange.asp
Walter,
Rather than dance around numerous issues (you failed to respond to any of the debunking I did of your previous answer, because you can’t)… and instead of providing a host of more debunking, let’s just focus on one.
“right up until 1954-1976 when the earth was now said to be COOLING towards a new Ice Age. By the way, those same scientists and journalist agreed on that as well.”
Bullshit. Again, your lack of study on this issue astounds me. But I can be corrected. Show me ONE (just one) peer-reviewed article from that time period that PREDICTS global cooling. I guarantee all you’ll find is a book written by a discredited scientist, some Pop Sci magazines, and out-of-context quotes from NAS reports.
So let’s stick to this one issue. Prove your point. That’s all I ask. Show me the proof that “all the most respected scientists” predicted global cooling. Give me names, since you pretend to be so familiar with them.
I have a strange feeling that your reply, if forthcoming, will dodge the issue.
And, as an addendum… rain from trees? Are you serious?!
Rain is from clouds, which is condensed water vapor, which is from evaporated water, like in ponds, lakes, and the ocean.
It’s one thing to use 2nd grade science to try to argue against the theories of PhDs (which is in and of itself stupid)… but to use INCORRECT 2nd grade science… I’m baffled by your stupidity!
Here’s a pretty website that explains it in terms and pictures you might understand: http://www.kidzone.ws/WATER/
And, if you want to come play with the adults in the big pool, here’s the technical version: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/home.rxml
There is no question that global warming is a natural phenomenon. Scientists are well aware that our planet has gone through waves of global warming and cooling. The concern is about how much humans are impacting this global warming and whether or not we are making a natural change more severe.
For those of you who are so opposed to global warming… are you merely just protesting because of supposed false information and you don’t want to be “duped”? Or do you have something financial to gain from this? Is it because you are worried that you might have to adjust your lifestyle in order to be more environmentally conscious? Where you might actually have to take notice how much waste you are leaving behind for our ancestors?
Whether global warming is true or not, it is about time that we all take notice of how we live. We ARE releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than ever before. This is not a theory, it is a fact. It is purely physics. Energy must go somewhere. Our cars, boats, and coal-dependent trains burn coal, diesel, oil, gasoline and thereby produce carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. The more we burn hydrocarbons, the more the by-products are released into the air. Do you want to breathe these?
The more crap we make for people to buy, the more energy is needed to make them. The more there is to buy, the more people throw out. Think of all the disposable items we use… The classic Swiffer television advertisement – “When you’re all done, just throw it away!” And where does all this waste go? It doesn’t disappear, it goes into land fill. We are slowly running out of land because there is no where to put our garbage. How does this affect the animals, not to mention the water running underneath these sites that fills our wells?
The issue is not just about global warming. The issue is being gentler to the Earth we live on – using the power that exists all around us (the wind, the sun, geothermal energy) so we don’t have to destroy it to the degree that we already have. It’s about thinking of how you can lessen your own footprint on this Earth so that others who follow can enjoy its beauty too.
This is not a democratic vs republican debate. It’s not Al Gore’s big trick. This debate separates those who are greedy (those who don’t want to change their life-style because they’re too busy being fat, lazy, near-sighted, and selfish) from those who are not.
Michael, I would like to first poiint out that your kid page even says that plants ’sweat’ in the form of WATER VAPOR which eventually turns into clouds and rain and all over again. So, just from that line alone, IF an area has no ocean or lakes or rivers, where do the clouds come from? partially from the plant life. Why is the rain forest so wet, except where the trees have been felled? Not because the Amazon is dry, no because the TREES ARE GONE! Hmmm, not too big a leap to see how it all fits together, is it?
Since that was such an obvious reply to your ‘trees don’t add to rain’ comment, I thought I would throw that out there. I will get your info on the scientist supporting the cooling in a bit, but this one, sheesh, gimme somethinig a little deeeper next time, like where does most of our oxygen come from, old trees or newly growing trees!
Kristen, I agree, this is a cycle, but we should be more careful and thoughtful about our environment, no doubt. But, I do have one thought about this being a political debate or, more to the point, an Al Gore trick, it is exactly that. Mr. Gore has done nothing but profit from this and believe me, if this wasn’t about money, why is Mr. Gore the only one that has a company that on can purchase ‘carbon credits’ from? Actually, it isn’t his company, but his best friends company. So, where does this leave us all? It really is saying, ‘pollute all you want, just purchase carbon credits and it will be as though you are not polluting at all’. Really? So if, say Los Angeles bought enough carbon credits, they could allow every vehicle and every factory to just spew at will and it would all be covered with the carbon credits? Somehow I think that is a ludicrous idea. I dunno, perhaps I should buy a plot of land and offer to sell carbon credits in the form of planting a tree for what ever company I think would buy that planting. I would even give them a certified certificate saying what carbon credit they are getting with the purchase of said tree.
Oh and by the way, this is from an article written by Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, which reads, ‘CO2 EMISSIONS :
1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 - 52 Gt C/ year
2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year
3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 - 2 Gt C/ year
4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 - 60 Gt C/ year
5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 - 2.6 Gt C/year
Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 - 7.5 Gt C/year
TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year
The table shows the range of estimates of natural CO2 and human production in 2005 (Gt C/year is Gigatons of Carbon per year). Accuracy has not improved since. Notice the human contribution is within the error range of three (1, 2, & 4) of the natural sources. The total error range is almost 5 times the amount of total human production. If we play the carbon tax game we can reduce that by 50 percent to 3.75 Gt C/year net because we remove half of what we produce through agriculture and reforestation. In other words, if everyone left the planet but one scientist remained to measure the difference in atmospheric CO2 she would not be able to measure any difference. ‘
see whole article here- http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3482
From there, you can link to what else he and his group are involved in, Of course, it turns into a ‘My dad can beat up your dad’ syndrome, doesn’t it?
Walter,
There are limitations on how many carbon credits can be issued not only to individual countries but also to individual companies. The companies/countries that do not use all of their credits can sell their credits to others. Yes - this does create pollution still but it also creates an added cost of doing business for companies that are not “green”. This is essentially saying “Pollute all you want, but it will cost you a lot of money, so maybe you should think about greener practices.”
Walter, why are you so concerned with who is making money? Would you rather have companies with green practices making money off of those who don’t OR would you rather have the oil companies making all the money at the expense of all of us?
Rather than complaining, judging and thinking about who is making money off of this industry, why not come up with some solutions for more sustainable energy? Or.. you could just sit around and get mad at Al Gore and all his money while the oil execs paste a $200 price tag on our precious oil.
LOL, actually Kristen, I am as angry at the oil execs about what they are doing as I am about ANY person, be it corporation or individual, that is making money destroying something or someone just because they can. That is why I hate politics in America, it has been ages (if ever) that the politicians of th=is country stood up for anyone other than the rich that put them where they are, and Barrack will be no different, unfortunately.
As for finding more solutions for sustainable energy, I believe that if it was out there, in such a way that a stock-holder would not stop the whole research, we would have had it by now, or at least be able to see it by now. I don’t think we are getting off the oil nipple for at least another decade but we best watch out that whatever we replace it with isn’t adding to the problem in another fashion. Like food shortages (a crock, don’t see why or how, but it is apparently happening) that is too easily blamed on ethanol production and biofuels? Whatev with that, if we are truly interested in producing biofuels or ethonol or whatever, instead of growing more corn or sugar cane, let the farmers continue to grow those food crops for food, what about growing something that has shown to have lots of inner energy waiting to be unlocked through whatever process one uses on plant to make them fuel, and allow it to grow and quit wasting time trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to kill it off with herbicides? I am speaking of course, of the Kudzu vine of the South. It grows a foot a day or some craziness like that, there is no know chemical that will kill it, and why are we USING it instead of complaining about how to get rid of it?
Now, is that enough for you?
I judge and complain the same for BOTH industries the same, I hold them to the same bar of ethics, else that would make me biased and therefore less likely to see the ‘truth’ about either of them.
There is enough thawing at the North Pole this year to be able to sail across the pole. That pretty much convinced me it’s real.
Barbaras last blog post..Odds On Autism
@Barbara- Great point. My next house is going to be a submarine. Thanks for your comment- L
I don’t doubt that the climate is changing, what I doubt is the causes behind it being as man made as some scientist say, that is all.
Oh and Lisa, be sure you sub is rated for extra deep waters, you don’t want to be too close to the surface in the case of inclement weather!!! (c:}
The Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM) I instrument was the first to clearly demonstrate that the total radiant energy from the sun was not a constant. However, the solar variability was so slight (0.1% of full scale) that continuous monitoring by state-of-the-art instrumentation was necessary. It is theorized that as much as 25% of the anticipated global warming of the earth may be solar in origin. In addition, seemingly small (0.5%) changes in the TSI output of the sun over a century or more may cause significant climatological changes on earth.
http://acrim.jpl.nasa.gov/
I’ve worked in government for 30 years you can’t believe what we say. If we told the truth there would be a revolution by the people.