• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Global Warming: Is it Real or is it Not?

eyez0nme

eyez0nme

New Member
I once believed it was a concoction of the human imagination...

Until I read this in the papers:

ExxonMobil paid to mislead public

Wed Jan 3, 2:15 PM ET

ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_bi_ge/exxonmobil_global_warming
 
I don't think that it is real - I did a huge project on it last year in biology. The scientists that assert that it is real are (a majority of the time) scientists who are knowledgable in fields other than meterology. People wouldn't turn to an astronomer in order to understand the human genome, so why turn to any old scientist for knowledge of the Earth and its climate? Mostly all meterologists concur that global warming is not occuring, or that if it is, it is merely a stage in the cycle of Earth's weather patterns.
 
Of course it's real. But even if it wasnt, creating stricter environmental policies to combat it wouldnt be a BAD thing...unless you own a corporation that would lose profits. Sounds like incentive enough to pay off the right people to discredit the theory.
 
claybugg said:
Of course it's real.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that? And in what way is it real? That humans are emitting greenhouse gases that are increasing global temperatures? (The increasing temperature thing isn't even solid fact, by the way. Many meterologists claim that the devices used to detect the temperature increases are merely detecting the increases due to growing urban populations - bigger city = more heat produced. Satellite temperature-measuring devices have actually recorded no change in temperature (and they are the least bias of any of such devices).

But even if it wasnt, creating stricter environmental policies to combat it wouldnt be a BAD thing...unless you own a corporation that would lose profits. Sounds like incentive enough to pay off the right people to discredit the theory.
Click to expand...
You're right, reducing gases emmitted would be great for reducing smog and all that. I never said that it was a bad thing, just that global warming is a bunch of rubbish. Do you recall the big hoopla in the 70s about the Earth's climate getting cooler because of the atomic bomb dropped in 45? Apparently they had all the facts back then too (and apparently the Earth was doomed), but like now, they were wrong.
 
Coming up with a conclusive answer is of course going to be difficult, but I think that it is better to err on the side that global warming is indeed happening.

Polar ice melting seems to be happening at abnormal rates, and the 10 years with highest recorded average temperatures all happened this decade or the last, I believe.

Is it a natural temperature swing? How would we know? Not well in any way, that's for sure. We have records dating back a hundred years or so. Any natural swing would be on a much greater scale.

In any event, if it is happening is it caused by man? Who can say, but if it is actually getting warmer, which it appears it is, it would be a great coincidence that it is happening in time with a period when mankind is emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases.

All in all, I prefer to take an illogical view. We are proven to be destroying species, habitats, etc. It's not much of a stretch to imagine we are affecting climate. Maybe we're not, maybe we are, but I know where my chips are.
 
nomadic myth said:
Is it a natural temperature swing? How would we know? Not well in any way, that's for sure. We have records dating back a hundred years or so. Any natural swing would be on a much greater scale.
Click to expand...
You can tell from rocks and fossils etc. I'm not really sure how, but I know that that is how they know that the Earth has been through periods of warming and cooling.

Who can say, but if it is actually getting warmer, which it appears it is, it would be a great coincidence that it is happening in time with a period when mankind is emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...
There were actually periods in the history of the Earth when greenhouse gases were much more abundant than they are now. This they can tell from fossilised plants. Again, I'm not sure how, all I know is that it can be shown.
 
I don't know. I've seen the difference between the polar ice caps twenty years ago and now.

And way out here where I live, we're getting freak storms like never before. I've never seen ice so heavy that it turns huge trees into splinters before, and I pray I never will again. I kind of wonder if there's a reason for that.

Greenland is melting, and if it does, it's going to flood all over and probably send Europe into an ice age. It's apparently happened before, when glaciers in the Americas melted; I'm not an expert on the ice ages, but that's the gist of it. That scares me, and it should scare everybody. And as claybug said, we should be more careful about the environment until we have sufficient proof that global warming is not a problem. And even then, it doesn't hurt to decrease things like pollution.
 
ValkyrieRaven88 said:
I don't know. I've seen the difference between the polar ice caps twenty years ago and now.

And way out here where I live, we're getting freak storms like never before. I've never seen ice so heavy that it turns huge trees into splinters before, and I pray I never will again. I kind of wonder if there's a reason for that.

Greenland is melting, and if it does, it's going to flood all over and probably send Europe into an ice age. It's apparently happened before, when glaciers in the Americas melted; I'm not an expert on the ice ages, but that's the gist of it. That scares me, and it should scare everybody. And as claybug said, we should be more careful about the environment until we have sufficient proof that global warming is not a problem. And even then, it doesn't hurt to decrease things like pollution.
Click to expand...
I don't think that many would argue that the Earth is warming - it's just the source of that warming that is the major point of conflict. When doing my project, I read that over the past century the Earth has been through a mini-Ice Age, if you will. The climate has actually been far colder than usual as of late, and this warming is just a return to "normal". I think that the Natural Cycle theory is much more valid than any other.
 
I don't want to get in the middle of an arguement, but simply share my belief with the hopes that others won't take offense or think less of me because of my words. After all, this IS a contreversial topic.
To be honest, I think that global warming is happening, but even if it isn't, Nomadic_Myth made a great point when she said that we should error on the side of global warming. I don't want to be alive when (if) the scientists figure out that global warming is real, but it's too late to do anything about it. We need to act now to figure out what is the cause of these climate changes and weather patterns even if it's nothing but a temperature swing. Even if it is a temperature swing, it's still dangerous. Plankton are already moving toward colder waters leaving the whales who prey on them dying. We need to pay attention to this. And if Greenland is indeed melting, that could flood areas of Europe. Not a good sign.
It still would be beneficial to reduce pollution even if this isn't happening. We already have caused horrible damage to the earth even if this one thing isn't one of them, which I believe is. As much as I hope I'm wrong, I believe that we need to be prepared for the fact that this could be happening to our world.
 
Global warming is a real effect that can and has been proven. Greenhouse gases can and will increase global temperatures. However there is no way to prove or measure the extent that manmade greenhouse gases has on the environment. Global temperatures will vary greatly regardless of what man does, and the influence of man on global temperatures may very well be insignificant.

However what most objective scientists is saying is that as long as the possibility is there, we should be aware of it and try to act responsibly. Most greenhouse gases also contribute other environmental problems that are much easier to measure, and should in itself be enough for caution.
 
President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
Click to expand...

Beautiful.
 
well of course big companies will sponsor (either is true or not what matters for them is PR) scientists that dont believe on the global warning
and then of course NGO wouldnt be getting any funds from concerned citizens and whatnot if they were to accept there is no global warning

i havent spend years reading scientific papers, and investigating its authors in order to know who has sell himself in order to know what scientific paper is thrutful.... so as far my best source its Michael Crichton's novel state of fear, and he seems like a decent chap who checks twice his sources, and makes sense, so im bend on beliving him :)

so i think there is not global warming, but there is a a warming tendency that has been around for some time now
 
mr_michel said:
i havent spend years reading scientific papers, and investigating its authors in order to know who has sell himself in order to know what scientific paper is thrutful.... so as far my best source its Michael Crichton's novel state of fear, and he seems like a decent chap who checks twice his sources, and makes sense, so im bend on beliving him :)
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity - when Michael Chrichton writes that we can recreate dinosaurs from mosquitos, or that people who criticize him are pedophiles, do you believe that too?
 
beer good said:
Just out of curiosity - when Michael Chrichton writes that we can recreate dinosaurs from mosquitos, or that people who criticize him are pedophiles, do you believe that too?
Click to expand...

oh my god, you are trying to ridiculize me by making me look naive, holy crap this is traumatic, i think i will never show my face in this forum again, im sooo embarased :eek: :eek:

unlike you i dont believe everything i read, by the way double read my previous post
while i dont believe there are dinosaurs running wild in an island somewhere close to costarica, i do believe its should posible in the not so far future to clone and extint animal if you have a dna sample in good conditions (just as those sci-fiction wacky scientists trying to bring back the tasmanian tiger seem to think), i know for a fact that there is amber as old as 90 million years.
so while im aware its a fiction writer (at least on this book) im also aware there is a research work used to create the context on what the novel developes, and AS FAR AS I HAVE READ most of his research seems ok, i did at the time check some of the bibliography and it was real (checked just a few NOT all), and i said on my last post
im bend on beliving him
Click to expand...
which DOESNT mean "i believe blindy with all my heart"

now is i have stated many times, you cant expect to find great answers in a $8.5 paperbook, and i dont, but until i take the time and interest to make a serious research by myself, i have to choose what makes sense to me from everything i heard and read around, and im really sorry (not really) if what makes sense to me, doesnt add to you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top