Comments on: So what happened to global warming? Global environmental challenges Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:14:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Alan Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:15:46 +0000 It astounds me that so many people decide that global warming is a myth and that it is all just natural causes and that there’s hype about nothing.

I am a trained earth scientist. I have looked at the data. I always have an inclination to look at matters coldly and flatly and decide on the evidence presented.

What I find most disturbing is that there is PLETHORA of evidence to support the fact that the earth is undergoing climatic change and this evidence is overwhelming in the fact that it is human casued!

The earth has undergone climate change before, and yes ice ages have come and gone, but have also taken 10,000 years and more to make that change. The earth has also seen warming before, and yes, some of it due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and yes, the CO2 has been as a result of natural causes, but again, this change occurred over tens of thoudsands of years, not hundreds of years! The difference is, that in the long past, species has had time to evolve (although 10,000 years is extremely quick in the eyes of evolution, a timescale of 100s of years to evolve to new conditions is CATASTROPHIC!).

The facts are staring us straight in the eye – a global AVERAGE (not everywhere!!) of 1 degree centigrade would cause huge problems – a 4 degree change in 100 years – which is what we could see – would mean vegetation extinction as they have not got enough time to grow and migrate with the temperatures. Less vegetation means less CO2 being converted back to oxygen, meaning increased temperatures, meaning increased species extinction meaning less vegetation meaning less CO2 being converted to oxygen – get the drift?

It’s simple – there is no conspiracy. The scientists have not got it wrong. The climate is changin, and the earth will change with it, and we are at the verge of the larges, greates extinction event ever! Forget the great extinction events of the past (such as the permian triassic event) – this now includes our own long term survival, as human beings.

Ignoring this fact is at our own peril!

By: Fred Cull Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:54:48 +0000 If humans are causing the global warming with the use of burning fossil fuels over the last century or two, what caused the reduction of the ice age over the last 30-40 thousend years before humans were burning fossil fuels?

By: Craig Thu, 08 Jan 2009 05:56:51 +0000 What is wrong with us? Do you not remember back only 30 some years ago it was going to be an ICE AGE that was going to destroy us? I am so disgusted with the insane ignorance of most “regular” people and our so called “savior government” who have fallen so far into this, what one of our most well know and respected climatologists Dr. Phil Gray has called “The Greatest Hoax Ever Puled On the American Public” Global Warming. Not only is it insane but the “culprit” put forth by the ALGORE cult “CO2″ is one of the necessities of life itself. If they want to start taxing CO2 they better hook up every living and breathing organism on the planet because that is where most of it is coming from.

As for the Nuclear Power proponents I just ask what do we do with the waste that is deadly for 10,000 years? That is not figured into the cost of the electricity produced. Also every Nuclear Plant is a Deadly Terrorist Target and the cost of Protecting those plants against that terrible threat has never even been discussed to my knowledge.

By: Joya hekkanen Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:39:37 +0000 people around the world is detroying the environment with trash!!!!

By: Travis Sun, 25 May 2008 12:55:28 +0000 I had no idea the anti carbon tax lobby would attack this article with such abandon!

In reality though, as a response to the original article, I think that the lack of AGW in the media is due to the fact that there are much bigger stories (rev Wright and Bittergate) that have been hogging the spotlight this year. Of course thats the same conclusion you came to.

I think there’s also tremendous work done to confuse people. Oil companies (As per Exxon Mobil) spend huge amounts of money funding the extremely partisan “global warming debunking” groups.

In the end, denial of AGW requires denial of many prominent groups, including NASA (which has the largest concentration of climatologists). Ultimately it stems from a couple of things though, lack of immediate and obvious consequences being the most prominent. The other, being what was mentioned so many times already: the weather.

While it is neat to say things like “we couldnt measure the temperature or Co2 levels of the atmosphere in the 19th century” it’s really a lie. There are several ways to test both, most notably measurements of ice. Ice that is decreasing at an ever increasing rate in the arctic.

In the end though, refusal to reduce CO2 emissions do not carry any positive potentials. From the melting of the arctic ice, to the exponential release of what was formerly frozen methane gas (a greenhouse gas) to the acidification of the ocean, one of our greatest food sources.

In the end, continuing production of CO2 on a large scale serves only to benefit those who produce it on such a large scale, energy companies who thrive on oil and coal.

By: Dave Barry Wed, 21 May 2008 16:25:37 +0000 Political… If your conservative, you are suppose to think anyone concerned about the environment is a whaco, If you are liberal, you are suppose to embrace “green” and global warming initiatives.

I dont think we have enough data to decide either way about global warming. We do have enough data to support being good stewards of our environment – for us and for our kids.

Yes, there may be those who dont practice at all what they preach, but that doesn’t releive any of us our responsibility to the planet that we all (democrats and republicans) drink, eat, and breathe on.

To me, it isn’t political, it is common sense.

By: Jeff Tue, 20 May 2008 16:10:39 +0000 Let me first say that I am a former science teacher with a degree in Biology who is now a school district superintendent. I am very concerned about the indoctrination of our children with any political viewpoint. I believe that a good teacher does not push children one way or the other, rather teaches them to think for themselves and learn how to collect and analyze data. Yet the propoganda piece of movie magic that Al Gore put out is in nearly every school and pushed by most science and elementary teachers. (Thanks, non-analyzing, left-leaning mainstream media!)

I believe as many do that nearly all of the AGW hype is for political purposes. Al Gore has been shown to be a charleton both in his lying and misrepresentation of facts in his film as well as his contradictory lifestyle.

That said, if these enviropolitical activists really analyzed their arguments, there is a serious conflict. For years they have complained that we are cutting down too many trees and not protecting our existing forests. More CO2 in the climate coupled with warmer temperatures would make for better growing conditions for our forests and farmers. CO2 is not – NOT – a pollutant. It is a critical ingredient for photosynthesis!

Fear! It is what the left uses to try to gain power and marginalize opponents. Live free of fear – support freedom.

By: John Gudenkauf Tue, 20 May 2008 15:37:47 +0000 I am constantly amazed that this topic hogs up all the headlines. It seems as though the debate of whether it is man made or a natural occurance, warming into the future or cooling is purely academic in nature, when the real topic of discussion should be that you cannot go anywhere in the world anymore without seeing, breathing, feeling, tasting and hearing pollution all around you – and the effects of it is astounding. Whether or not there is global warming, we are doing a terrible job of managing what resources we have left.


By: Ranger Tue, 20 May 2008 02:16:46 +0000 I would echo what Forrest has said. I am an engineer also, and as such seek efficiencies in everything I do. I also started off believing in the global warming hype. After much study myself, I have also concluded that what we have been witnessing is nothing more than natural variation from a multitude of factors. Most to complex to model. I reject the overblown CO2 sensitivities and lack of meaningful variables such as the sun spot cycle modelers have used to scare the populace. I believe what we have seen is the hijacking of a noble branch of science. Unfortunately, it will probably take years(perhaps a generation) for climatology to recover as a science that will be seen as credible. The global warming alarmists have done us all a disservice in more ways than just financial.

By: Tom L Tue, 20 May 2008 01:54:40 +0000 I want to thank Jim Peden for providing the link to the ClimateChange.doc paper. Like Larry, I am an engineer also. I happen to work in the nuclear energy industry which has much to gain from the acceptance of the CO2 driven AGW hoax. I have been a “denier” for some time and don’t really care if the fraud of global warming is finally exposed and the nuclear industry takes a dive (again). I hope it doesn’t because nuclear power really is a great way to go, but that’s another fight.

I didn’t really examine the paper in detail, but the important facts are there. If this could be distilled into something that the general public could understand, along with a few graphics, then maybe Algore and his ilk could finally be exposed for their lies. I recently had the opportunity to work on infrared CO2 gas detectors, and what I learned about CO2 energy absorption makes the truth of the paper’s conclusions painfully obvious: any level of atomospheric CO2 above a minimal amount, well below the current level, will NOT cause any perceptible change in global temperature. If I understand the science correctly, the IR wavelengths that CO2 can absorb will ALL get absorbed by CO2 and water vapor over a certain mininal distance and therefore are completely filtered out within that distance. Due to the conservation of energy, changing the concentration of GHG will only change the elevational distribution of any temperature changes but will not alter the overall temperature change.