Sagittarius
I said it once and I'll say it as many times as I need to until somebody listens: Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This, in fact, is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. We have created such a level of environmental hysteria that reason, rationality and facts are being thrown out the window.
In the last year, I've seen documentaries, read hundreds of comments in forums and witnessed how scientists around the world try to find the way to stop the effects of Global Warming. The big problem is that all those people do not understand what's really going on. It's all part of a natural process. In fact, since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
Considering the scientific evidence that is available, the latest report on Global Warming by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appears to be nothing other than a big lie. They have no real evidence to prove what they are saying.
COMMENTS (16)
RATE THIS STORY
Nude photos of the MTV reality star surfaced on the...
I'm a semi-retired “stringer”—I shoot video on the fly to sell to news outlets....
Comments
This is great. I'm only 14
By dsavig69, July 26, 2007 at 19:37This is great. I'm only 14 and I'm glad to hear some great meanings that global warming is not real. Especially the part of the Earth's natural cooling and warming. This is very educational! It's very good!
There are those who would
By Richard Day Gore, April 17, 2007 at 04:47There are those who would also argue that Global Warming (or massive climate change) represents the earth trying to heal itself. If the earth is going to heal itself (which it ultimately will one way or another), we need to work with it to ensure that its healing causes the least damage to the life that inhabits it. George Carlin joked about environmentalists years ago, and their call to "Save the earth"--"What's all the fuss," he said. "The EARTH is going to be fine."
Regards,
Richard Day Gore
I've a challenge for all who
By larsmith, July 10, 2007 at 08:00I've a challenge for all who are qualified to take it.
Discover, by which ever means of reliable research & study you can do, the volume of CFC's thrust into the atmosphere when Mount Pinatubo erupted several years ago.
Discover, secondly, the estimated volume of CFC's that man kind has added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial era(s).
Compare the two. Which is greater ?
Now discover the amount of CFC's which have been thrust, by volcanic eruptions, into the atmosphere in the last 10 years ( 20 years, 50 years, 100 years ).
If you're energetic and well motivated, estimate the volume of CFC's thrust by volcanic eruptions into the atmosphere since the first volcano billions of years ago.
I'd love to see some trustworthy and "qualified" soul place those volumes into a spread sheet & generate a bar chart of the facts.
Is someone here in this discussion qualified and trust worthy to generate that bar chart and fill us in on the results ? Or does anyone here have connections with someone(s) who can give us those results.
My prediction is that you'll find that that ONE volcanic eruption placed more CFC's in the atmosphere than has mankind since the dawning of the industrial era(s).
Enough with the overly cliche'd rhetoric. Give me the facts re: CFC's and the over-all impact man has had vs. the impact that the earth has had in this matter of how CFC emissions into the atmosphere are credited with global warming, climate change, etc.
I recently read a study that
By Brandon, April 13, 2007 at 09:59I recently read a study that the temperatures of MARS are also rising...
Has anyone ever suspected that the cause of greater temperatures might be connected to the SUN? It is after all, 12 million times the mass of Earth and a constantly erupting nuclear fireball. It makes sense that every once and a while it gets a little hotter, and it has more to do with our climate than all other factors combined.
The earth is steadily moving
By larsmith, April 13, 2007 at 12:21The earth is steadily moving away from the sun. It makes sense that over time, the earth will COOL, relative to what it is today. The sun is burning out. It makes sense that the earth will cool. I don't understand the panic. After all, global warming means more open territory for a growing population. Yes, it may mean some lost shore line but I'd have to wager in the mean time, there'd be more realestate available in north America, as well as northern Europe / Russia / Asia. That's a good thing, isn't it ?
I've noticed some of the
By Heather Wallace, April 14, 2007 at 08:54I've noticed some of the most controversial stories are often rated less than 5 stars and I wonder whether or not people are voting based on the quality of the story, or based on the fact they disagree with a subject's argument. I think it's easier for people to rate a story down than it is for them to register and post a comment about why they disagree. That makes sense. But I do encourage people to take the couple moments to register, become part of the community and enter into the dialogue.
Tim Ball's story may have a controversial argument, but he raises some very important food for thought. I certainly think any attention the world pays to environmental issues is a positive thing. Even if our activities weren't causing Global Warming, humans are undoubtedly doing damage to our environment and our sense of balance is completely off kilter. We are out of touch with sustainable living, and we need to learn to be mindful of our footprint on this planet.
Al Gore, David Suzuki and other prominent environmentalists have done wonders for that mindfulness. But I appreciate Tim Ball asking us not to accept everything we're told at face value. "Don't believe everything you think" is a good motto.
Heather Wallace
senior editor
David Suzuki is an honorable
By larsmith, April 14, 2007 at 10:05David Suzuki is an honorable environmentalist. Al Gore is an opportunist. One should never casually associate the two, lest David Suzuki be rightfully offended. If any should question the credentials of Tim Ball to presume to express anything from an expert perspective, one should most certainly be watchfully cautious and skeptical about Al Gore's credentials, for some close to him might well suggest to you that he's an environmentalist for just as long as it's politically expedient to do so. David Suzuki is an environmentalist by conviction, Al Gore by convenience.
...says the Backlash camp.
By Heather Wallace, April 14, 2007 at 18:52...says the Backlash camp.
Well i wouldn't be so quick
By luyen, April 15, 2007 at 21:57Well i wouldn't be so quick to label Al Gore an opportunist - there are far more 'self-help' gurus who seem genuine, only to cash in on talk shows and book deals.
Sure Al Gore might not have the credentials of a Dr.David Suzuki, but unless we're in his mind, we can't know how genuine Al Gore's intentions are.
And if he's a bit of an opportunist, there have been far worse - and at the very least, his efforts might bring out the best in the rest of us.
I certainly don't agree on Al Gore 'greenifying' his multi-million dollar mansion, because it's a mansion - but it's better than not trying at all.
As for Mr.Ball i think it's good to be a critical, but in the case of a possible, if not pending environmental catastrophes, and let's face it...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that global weather patterns have changed.
But let's say for a moment Mr.Ball is right, CO2 emissions aren't the main cause - the way government crawls, by the time enough data is gathered to prove or disprove what are really scientific best-guesses in many cases, well we could already be in deep trouble.
I mean if you think about the logic behind that - if a situation is full-blown, then it's easy to say, ah that was the cause of that, because you have the completed result to study the cause.
I think as 'regular people' we just need to take care of our day to day actions, from what we say, to what we do, consume and throw away. If we wait for some external force to convince us 100% without looking at what we do on a daily basis, what chance is there for any type of chance?
Luyen stated "it doesn't
By larsmith, April 16, 2007 at 14:18Luyen stated "it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that global weather patterns have changed"
Stating "weather" and "change" in the same sentence is like using "water" and "wet" in the same sentence. It's one of those "goes without saying" sort of things.
People who believe in evolution believe that the earth has healed itself and improved itself thru a series of spectacular accidents, not just once but billions of billions ( yes, I said "billions of billions" ) of times ... and therefore, STATISTICALLY speaking, the odds are that the earth will protect / heal itself THIS time as well. If evolution is true, then our panic is without merit, since billions of years of evolving better things in the face of adversity has produced great things.
A dyed-in-the-wool evolutionist _has_ to believe that the earth will evolve something good of what appears to be going wrong.
To believe otherwise would be to fly in the face of the "science of evolution" for it would be to suggest that what "mother earth" has done for billions of years it can not do now.
Oh ye of little faith ...
It's certainly true that
By Richard Day Gore, April 13, 2007 at 08:01It's certainly true that Global Warming is a political football to be kicked around in the name of votes and finances. But the "hysteria" has probably done more than any other cause to promote earth-awareness, so it may be worth the hoopla in the long run. It's just a shame that it's become a partisan issue, because hot-headed partisanism makes real dialogue impossible.
Richard Day Gore
Whether or not CO2 is the
By luyen, April 13, 2007 at 09:33Whether or not CO2 is the *main* contributor of global warming, i don't know, and the author may have a point there. None of us is able or has the ability to analyze scientific data.
But it also goes against all reasonable intelligence and common sense, that human beings, industrialized only in the last 100 years have had an enormous impact on the environment.
There is no doubt, because we can attest to this in our daily lives, that our industrialization has had *some* impact, on air, water, earth, all different kinds of ecosystems.
It makes 100% common sense that what we produce as human beings, should de-compose or re-circulate back into its original materials, like all other organic things on the earth.
CO2 may or may not be the main culprit, but certainly doing nothing is significantly worse, and like Richard Day Gore said, increasing the awareness will lead to better science in the future, let's hope.
I am not sure that Tim Ball
By ssam, April 13, 2007 at 06:51I am not sure that Tim Ball is the best authority on climate change. Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_ball the is a section on the dispute over Tim Ball's academic credentials.
What a breath of fresh air
By larsmith, April 13, 2007 at 03:45What a breath of fresh air to see such an important topic discussed here on Orato. High five to Tim and to Cecilia for the article !!
Commonly taught to even school-aged childeren is two important milestones in history. One is the fossil evidence for high temperatures and the other is for the ice age, at obviously seperate times in our past.
For those who care to look, they will find that some volcanic eruptions have contributes more to global warming than has mankind in the industrial era.
There is a global power struggle a-foot and the issue of global warming is but one more tool in the arsenal of those who wish to stear ( leverage ? ) global politics.
Re: The Big Lie Of Global Warming
By rbroberg, April 29, 2008 at 21:01Claim 1: Global warming is a lie.
Evidence provided: none
Claim 2: 1940 - 80 was a cooling trend.
Evidence provided: none
Counterpoint: The cooling trend ended by the 50s.
Evidence provided: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
(BTW, I agree this is arguable. If Dr. Ball had provided any evidence at all, I'd give him credit for this one - even though I disagree)
Claim 3: 1970's consensus was global cooling
Evidence provided: none
Counterpoint: 1970's global cooling consensus is a myth
Evidence provided: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Claim 4: Current trends show cooling
Evidence provided: none
Counterpoint: Current trends show warming
Evidence provided: http://rhinohide.cx/gw/img/gistemp1999-2007.gif
Claim 5: IPCC 4 has no real evidence to back their claims
Evidence provided: none
Counterpoint: IPCC 4 WG1 Chap 9 has ~50 references.
Evidence provided: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/suppl/docs/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch09-SM.pdf
Claim 6: We know that climate models don't work,
Evidence provided: none
Counterpoint: Even 20 year old models are still in the running
Evidence provided: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
I don't know what Dr Ball was trying to prove with that article, but its nothing but hot air and falsehoods. And this is another reason to shun popular press for scientific info. Newspapers don't like printing sources or citations. Maybe Dr. Ball has a roomful of evidence to back up what he has to say. But it sure as hell doesn't show up in this article.
Re: The Big Lie Of Global Warming
By Bud Oracle (not verified), April 29, 2008 at 22:51http://www.desmogblog.com/cbcs-5th-estate-slams-the-denial-machine-tonig...