A well-written article from a college freshman. It is nice to see college students thinking and questioning the claims being made about global warming.
Peter
from: http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/10/03/Opinion/The-Sky.Is.Falling-3007739.shtml
10/3/07
The sky is falling
By Daniel Earnest
After watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," I saw that Gore, despite his monotonous tone and poor use of humor, is indeed a great persuasive speaker. But that is just it - Gore employs useless rhetoric and persuasive techniques, such as showing the image of a cute, fuzzy polar bear, to convince the world of global warming's validity, rather than sticking to the facts. Gore's efforts made him to be one of the most sought-after speakers in America and, most recently, garnered him an Oscar. Hailed as a secular saint and the Noah of our time by experts such as Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey, Gore travels to campuses across the nation to proliferate his alarmist cries, attempting to act as a sort of John the Baptist in the wilderness.
However, outside the realm of the liberal media and Hollywood, Gore is looked at with pity and disgust by real scientists who have done extensive research on the subject of global warming. According to February 2007 issue of Philidelphia Magazine, for instance, geologist Robert Giegengack believes Gore's understanding of the world is so poor that he told his undergraduate students at the University of Pennsylvania: "Every single one of you knows more about global warming than Al Gore."
But why would Al Gore devote his life to a seemingly baseless, ridiculous science? The answer is simple - the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business. Billions of dollars of grant money are flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. All of the alarmism is designed to get your money and then guilt you into living your life a certain way. Aside from this, do not forget that Gore charges $100,000 at each stop on his tour across the nation.
So what is really going on in our atmosphere, and can we prevent it from happening? Climate scientists across the globe once thought, like Al Gore, that CO2 was the culprit in the story of global warming. However, recent scientific research has shown that the sun has been driving temperature changes, as we have the highest solar activity we have had in 1,000 years. In fact, according to the Danish National Space Center, the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.Also, the Russian Academy of Sciences showed in January that, as solar radiation warms Earth, CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the world's oceans, not from SUVs and factories.
Also, CO2 may not be as dangerous and threatening as we once thought. Surprisingly, in 2006, even the United Nations' records show that cow emissions are more damaging to the planet than CO2 from cars.Greenhouse gases, the lovechildren of increased CO2 levels, do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, contrary to popular opinion. At some point "the heat-trapping capacity of the gas and its effect get saturated, and you don't have increased heating," according to a report by Boston College geology and geophysics professor Amy Frappier.
Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol is nothing but a socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries to level the worldwide economic playing field. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocol is all cost with no gain. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that Kyoto would cost an average family of four $2,700 annually, yet would only reduce the temperature by 0.06 degrees Celsius. Also, if legislation like Kyoto would pass in our country, it would represent the largest tax increase ever. According to Wharton, the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. economy at least $300 billion annually, 10 times President Clinton's 1993 record tax increase, which cost $32 billion.
It's no wonder the Senate unanimously voted down Gore in the late 1990s. Also, since Gore calls for great reform, wouldn't you expect him to be an environmental leader? However, this is not the case, as Gore not only flies on a private jet to all the different cities around the nation, but he also has not converted to green energy or sacrificed consumption, as he has called the citizens of America to do. I guess you could say he is almost as hypocritical as the do-nothing Democrats in Congress. I'm not sure which is more arrogant: to say we caused global warming or to say that we can fix it. Both positions are wrong.
The notion that humans have caused global warming is sensational, and alarmists such as Gore can be equated to little kids attempting to scare each other about the end of the world. It quite possibly could be the greatest deception in the history of science, and people need to search for answers from real experts, rather than listening to Hollywood stars and political has-beens. (Earnest is an economics freshman.)
6 comments:
Not wanting to entertain to much of this uneducated and misinformed crap, I will comment on one point you made. When you say "Gore is looked at with pity and disgust by real scientists who have done extensive research on the subject of global warming." One thing comes to mind, IPCC. Look up your facts
Sorry, but the IPCC is an irrelevant political tool, just like the Nobel Prize Committee. Look up the facts.
see here for the facts:
geoPeterMessage #1
10/17/07 12:24 AM No Scientific Consensus On Global Warming....Not Even Close
Many people seem to have accepted the idea that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing global warming. They say, "the United Nations and the International Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) says so." The reality is the majority of scientists disagree. We are not being told the truth. Read the following article and see what you think. This is science being manipulated and used for political purposes.
Peter
from: http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htmClick to view image
Blog: Science Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming TheoryClick to view imageMichael Asher (Blog)Click to view image - August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
Summary. Comprehensive survey of published climate research reveals changing viewpoints
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.
The figures are surprising. Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here.
Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.
Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors."
The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.
I give credit for your ability to attempt to think for yourself, although i do not agree with your views on humans effects to the environment. Al Gore blah blah blah who cares, any educated individual who attempts to make a reasonable difference wouldnt be getting they're facts from him in the first place. It is a straight fact that global warming and CO2 in the atmosphere is a natural and positive phenomenon. It is the fact of the exponential increase in the CO2 increase and the Exponential increase in global temperature. Although this is the case, other gasses must be taken into consideration. Your statement about cows, is refereing to Methane, which is about 10 times as effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Its is proven that there has been an increase of .5-1% per year since 1850. This is due to anthropogenic souces as stated. Its not the methane gas being released directly to the atmosphere which could be the major contributor to global increase in temperature. There are large Methane Hydrate resevoirs stored in permafrost and on the continental shelves. This resevoir is 2 times greater than all the fossil fuel resevoirs combined(coal, gas, oils). The formation of these hydrates require the right temperature and pressure, which is found 300-1900m deep in ocean sediment, and as shallow as 150m deep in continental polar regions. As atmospheric C02, CH4, and CFC's increase global temperatures increase, including sea Temperature. Although this also causes polar caps to melt and increase the hydrostatic pressure, the increase in temp. is above the P/T difference line to cause thermal destabillization of Marine Hydrates. If a large enough bubble reaches the surface if can be considered a catestrophic release.
It is also a fact that the CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past 100000yrs. The current rate of increase of CO2 is 100x faster than the higest average prior to the industrial revolution.
Recent scientific reports, with satellite imagining prove the global sea surface temperature cooling mehcanism of Tropical Cyclones. Other recent scientific reports state "scientists making a breakthrough in mans desire to control the forces of nature." The article explains plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course. weakend hurricanes--> weakened natural Hurricane cooling mechanism. This leads to increase in sea temperatures, leading again to destabillization of Marine Hydrates. It only takes 1% of 5% of the total CH4 hydrate resevoir to double the CH4 in the atmosphere.
Despite numerous other gasses as well as mechanisms causeing global temperature changes, including DMS, CFCs, Nitrous Oxide, as well as Water vapor. Please tell me that you cannot be serious on your denial of the fact that humans have contributed beyond natural causes to an increase of global temperatures.
and yes these facts have been taken from real scientists dedicating they're life to researching this area as well as spreading this imformation to others.
Making a correction on a statement in my previous comment, "It is also a fact that the CO2 levels are higher than they have been in the past 100000yrs." That should be that the current atmospheric CONCENTRATION of CO2 is higher than it has been in the past 100,000yrs.
I appreciate the work of all people who share information with others.
Post a Comment