http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/globalWarmingUrgency.htmExcerpt: And I am posting this because people MUST see it.
We can't solve this ourselves. Even if we we somehow able to cut our emissions to zero tomorrow, CO2 levels would continue to rise every year due to the emissions of other countries. It is a global problem and it needs to be solved by all countries working together to fight a common enemy. If we do not, then we all lose. We must be the leader. We are the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. If we do not lead and get other nations such as China to follow us, we are all toast.
Those temperatures and record dry spells we are seeing now? That's nothing. Most of that is from CO2 emitted many decades ago. The CO2 levels we are at now are much much higher than 1950. That's why I said above: we ain't seen nothin' yet. We are seeing, quite literally, the tip of the iceberg. By the time 2050 rolls around, it will be a catastrophe. That's why Gore made the movie.
Why the skeptics cannot be believed
There are a few scientists who once believed there was a link between CO2 and temperature rise and are now uncertain. Of the thousands of scientists who believe global warming is real, Inhofe identified a grand total of 13 scientists who are skeptical. However, none of them proposes a model that fits the data, and the most credible of them (Allegre) simply says the cause of warming is "unknown." The others suggest it is nature or solar activity or it is just random noise.
However, the IPCC report charts (see p. 11) make these alternate theories too hard to believe: the observations lie way outside the ranges predicted from all of the "natural sources" climate models but well within the ranges predicted using climate models that incorporate man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Please, take a look at this one page from the IPCC report. It shows it very clearly in 5 seconds you'll see it. Also, prominent on that list is climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas. I've read papers by de Freitas and what de Freitas does is quote information out of context to mislead readers into believing his source material said one thing when it in fact clearly said exactly the opposite! You rarely see such irresponsible behavior in a technical paper, but since his paper was never published in a peer reviewed journal, it is easy to get away with misdirection; you can lie all you want. Here's an email exchange I had about the blatant misrepresentations in the de Freitas' paper so you can see both sides and judge for yourself who is right. You can see how the "Friends of Science" avoids answering my question and switches the topic. Things get a lot more clear about this organization when you read Friends of Science - SourceWatch which notes that the "friends" are funded by oil companies and they do not show up at any scientific meetings or present any peer reviewed papers.
In general however the skeptics fail on any number of fronts:
In modern times, there are no examples where a comparable degree scientific consensus was achieved and the results were later proven to be wrong. ZERO. 2,500 prominent scientists couldn't find any climate models incorporating natural sources only that fit the data. Yet climate models that incorporated CO2 effects easily fit the data. This is crystal clear in Figure SPM.4. If this is natural variation, how come the skeptics can't come up with a climate model that fits the observed data, while, conversely, the believers can easily use the CO2 data in climate models that do fit the data? if they cite a paper to back up their claims (such as Beck's), it will be to a paper that was never published in a peer reviewed journal
if they are daring enough to cite a cause, they say the data can be explained by natural sources. But there are only two natural sources that are cited that can cause the variation: the sun and the atmosphere. However, the solar variations of the 11-year sunspot cycle causes only about 10% of the overall observed variations in climate. There are orbital variations (both tilt and elliptical path) which cause huge variations as you can see from the data. There are several cycles for this, with short and long time constants, but they are all of the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years. As far as the atmosphere, we know for a fact the exact composition of the air for the past 500,000 years; every element. And CO2 is the main gas that has been demonstrated to have greenhouse gas properties. The problem with the "natural variation" argument is fundamentally that the CO2 and methane levels are both way higher than the past 500,000 years and have risen faster than at any time in history according to the ice core data. The ice core data has never been challenged in a peer reviewed paper.
they cannot account for where all the CO2 caused by man has "disappeared" to in a way it has no effect on the climate... a black hole perhaps? The CO2 from man far outstrips the net natural sources. And CO2 has been unequivocally proven to be a greenhouse gas (i.e., heat trapping).
they all fail to come up with any alternative climate model that fits the data more accurately and passes peer review; they tend to focus on a single anomaly (e.g., the ice is getting thicker in certain parts of Antarctica) and cite that isolated fact as "proof" that the planet isn't warming. Such "selective" examples are misleading and can be easily explained by climate scientists, but if you aren't a climate scientist, it sounds convincing. In this case, the ice thickening is explained by shifting wind patterns in that particular region of Antarctica.
some of skeptics respond to criticism of their viewpoints by hurling four-letter words at the scientists who point out the errors rather than answering the question. In particular, see this wikipedia article on The Great Global Warming Swindle for info on Martin Durkin's completely distorted view of the science. But you have to actually research what is presented in that show to figure out what a complete fraud it is. For example, Tim Ball is listed as Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg. There are just two problems with that attribution that you can verify yourself: 1) There isn't a Dept of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg (and there never has been) and 2) Tim Ball hasn't been there for at least 10 years. See this wikipedia article on Tim Ball. And apparently, when Ball was there, he told students that there was no such thing as the greenhouse effect. Here's a nice article that takes apart Durkin's "documentary."
some of them say water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas and it driving this change. While they are correct that water vapor is the potent greenhouse gas, the IPCC Report points out that the water vapor that has increased since the 1980s has all been consistent with warmer temperatures. So water vapor is like temperature in that respect; it is being driven by the greenhouse gasses (CO2 and methane).
They try to debunk Jim Hansen by saying he got funding from the Heinz Center, which is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution dedicated to improving the scientific and economic foundation for environmental policy. This is always a red-flag for me. If the best that they can do is attack his funding, it means they cannot attack his science. So they focus on pointing out his research was funded by a institution seeking to improve our understanding of the science behind global warming.
They say that the ice in Antarctica is increasing, yet conveniently fail mention that the Larsen-B ice shelf in Antarctica, stable for 12,000 years, suddenly collapsed in less than a month. "We knew what was left would collapse eventually, but the speed of it is staggering," said Dr David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the Bas in Cambridge. "
to believe that 500 billion tonnes of ice sheet has disintegrated in less than a month." Did any of the skeptics predict that? Nope! Can the skeptics explain that? Nope! Nowhere is there an explanation from the skeptics of how this can happen from natural variations.
Their claims that warming isn't happening or that it is "natural variations" fail to explain why Florida, Los Angeles, Australia, etc. are all simultaneously experiencing "driest years on record." For that reason, most skeptics do not deny the warming is happening. None of the natural causes climate models fit the observed temperature rises (Look at Figure SPM4 in the IPCC Working Group 1 Summary for Policymakers as it CLEARLY makes this point which you can see instantly (flip to page 11).
NASA administrator Michael Griffin who said on NPR that he wasn't sure we needed to do anything about global warming is uninformed (see NPR NASA Scientist Critiques Bush's Strategy).
The suppression and distortion of science is actually working the opposite way that the skeptics claim; legitimate scientists who speak of the dangers are being muzzled by the administration, not vice-versa. Same with the IPCC reports where the US wanted to change "... by 2050" to read "...by the end of this century." The science behind global warming is so strong that even President Bush admits it is real as you can see in this hilarious video, but it is true in real life too.
The insurance industry is starting to refuse to sell insurance because of climate change. If it isn't real, why would they reduce their revenue? They call Gore an alarmist, but shouldn't they be calling him a prophet? He predicted global warming 20 years ago. Did the current batch of skeptics have a more accurate prediction 20 years ago than Gore? If so, where can I look up their prediction from 20 years ago that predicted the climate changes we are now experiencing? So if Gore predicted it and they didn't, we are supposed to believe them and not Gore? That makes no sense.
I emailed the guy who wrote Inhofe's skeptics guide and asked him two simple questions. I wanted to know 1) do you believe the planet is not heating up? if so, what is your strongest proof of that. 2) if the planet is heating up, what is the strongest proof you have that man made CO2 emissions cannot be the cause? I heard nothing back. Crichton refused to answer 10 simple questions about the science in his book and distorts the facts. Inhofe calls Crichton's work the true story of global warming, yet Crichton himself admits his book is fiction and not a documentary.
MIT's Richard Lindzen, is another skeptic cited by Inhofe, but even Lindzen agrees that warming has occurred especially in the past two decades, but he claims that climate science is too uncertain for us to know the cause. The wikipedia page on Richard Lindzen notes that he said the odds that global temperatures would be lower in the next 20 years were 50:50 and if someone offered him higher odds than that, he would be tempted to take the bet. When someone did offer him higher odds (2:1), Lindzen refused saying he'd only accept a bet with 50:1 odds in Lindzen's favor. In short, with his demand, Lindzen is saying that the chances things will get worse are more than 98% certain.
Inhofe, the leading critic in the Senate, is a real estate businessman, not a scientist. He also admits that he is "not as smart as most of you guys around here." Kerry, who is a lot smarter of Inhofe, does a very thorough job of debunking Inhofe's points in the Congressional Record discussion of the Kerry Amendment on May 15, 2007 (WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007) which would have required the government to consider global warming science when planning water projects.
A Wall St. Journal opinion piece by Philip Stott is debunked here.
here's a list of skeptics categorized by belief
Glenn Beck's 2-hour CNN special debunking global warming was filled with facts that have already been debunked
Five of the last 8 years have been the hottest on record and 2005 was the hottest ever. So if global warming is a hoax, how do you explain the sudden increase? Well, they just don't tell you.
The north pole has melted for the first time in 55 million years. You don't have to believe any scientific predictions at all; just your own eyes. If global warming is a hoax, how do you explain that? It is readily observable. This article from the San Francisco Examiner says: "For the first time in 50 million years, visitors to the North Pole can see something extraordinary: water. "The thick ice that covers the Arctic Ocean at the North Pole has melted, leaving a mile-wide stretch of water at the top of the world, The New York Times reported Saturday." OK, so our skeptics explanation is....??? It can't be natural causes since all the natural causes (Milankovitch cycles) have time constants less than 100,000 years, not 55 million years, and by natural cycles, things should be getting colder, not warmer. See NASA - Top Story - RECENT WARMING OF ARCTIC MAY AFFECT WORLDWIDE CLIMATE - October 23, 2003 for a comparison of 1979 vs. 2003 photos of the North Pole. The rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate of warming over the last 100 years. Here's the same photo with the old area outlined. NRDC Global Warming Puts the Arctic on Thin Ice. The skeptics explanation is that the ice is melting because ....?
The natural forces cycles predict the earth should be getting cooler and cooler since we are well passed a 100,000 year peak. Yet the temperatures are getting warmer and warmer. The skeptics explanation is ...?
Their argument that CO2 follows temperature increase appears to be their strongest, but not if you understand the science. It's true that the ice core data shows that. Nobody denies that temperature increases cause CO2 increases. But what is happening today is different than the past. It is man that is driving the CO2 increases. The question is: will that also drive a temperature increase? We cannot look to the past to answer this question because past CO2 events have been driven by temperature variations primarily caused by orbital changes (sunspot activity is very minor in comparison). What we have to go on therefore are the facts that CO2 is undisputably a greenhouse gas and that climate models that take into account man-made emissions fit the observed temperatures whereas climate models that don't do not fit the data. See Figure SPM.4.
Finally, see Gristmill's incredible "how to talk to a climate skeptic" page
The skeptics arguments are debunked on Media Matters - Myths and falsehoods about global warming and Media Matters - NPR's Harris faulted Gore's global warming facts, while getting facts wrong.
Most of this is a misinformation campaign designed to fool you into maintaining the status quo because most people do not have time to check the facts. A new report from Greenpeace USA’s Research Department indicates ExxonMobil continues to fund 41 think tanks and front groups by funneling $2.1 million in grants in 2006 to help them orchestrate denial of global warming science. According to the database ExxonSecrets.org, total ExxonMobil funding to all “denial” organizations from 1998 to 2006 now totals nearly $23 million. And that's just from one corporation.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
