Global Warming: Science vs. Activism

Viewing 65 User Comments	Write a Comment
Concerned on 3/12/2009 10:59:00 AM writes: It seems this will continue to be a topic of constant debate and skepticism especially when the scientists etc can not even come up with a definitive answer. Al Gore seems to have made this his life's work. Maybe Mr Gore should spend more time speaking with the "experts" since he is obviously not one himself.
Very Concerned on 3/12/2009 11:43:00 AM writes: I am very concerned that the current administration is going to act on the bad science behind the wild claims of the alarmists. Our economy is already in bad shape, probably in a depression, so carbon taxes will be another nail in the economy's coffin.
BS on 3/12/2009 1:24:00 PM writes: The Heartland Institute is just another right-wing think tank. With a BOD from Oil and Gas Companies and high profit health (death) care compaines, does anyone really think they would invite true scientific debate? I'm surpirised ECN would acknowledge this garbage.
Jerry on 3/12/2009 1:28:00 PM writes: You would dispute the claims of the noted scientist, Al Gore? :)
Physicist's Viewpoint on 3/12/2009 1:31:00 PM writes: Mr. Lomberg's final paragraph calls it hubris to claim humans are capable of such influence over the environment, but offers no justification. Then he paints it as an indictment of industry, and claims its politics, when in fact he is the one politicizing it. The debate is only over when skeptics argue motives, selective data, and emotion rather than the facts. Look at the heat balance equation for the globe. Look at trends - all of them - including polar melting and the occurrence of the warmest years on record. And realize, just as skeptics claim scientists have an agenda, so do the skeptics.
Tom Lisec on 3/12/2009 1:33:00 PM writes: Jason Lomberg demonstrated nothing more than activism in his above comments. He "cherry picked" selected opinions to support industry view (which supports his salary) and ignored certifiable scientific fact contrary to his view. If he wants to be credible he needs to be unbiased.
Natural Cycle on 3/12/2009 1:38:00 PM writes: Global Warming has been a hype for too long. If the cooling has already started, we will see the effect within couple years. What should we do about all the carbon tax then? Use it to produce more CO2 to warm the globe?
Musings..... on 3/12/2009 1:40:00 PM writes: Let's see...A group of scientists who have expert knowledge of the subject convene, review data to see if conditions are developing as predicted by the global warming model, and find the data does not support the theory, while a group of activists with a known socio-economic-political agenda to promote state as a matter of dogma that global warming is a fact The former is labelled "prejudice" while the latter is labelled "objective science." The premise seems flawed!
Marc on 3/12/2009 1:43:00 PM writes: I think it's reasonable to retain some amount of skepticism when it comes to analyzing the extent that humans influence global warming. With that said, I believe that the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that humans are playing a significant part in the cause-effect relationship, even if there are other, more "natural" rhythms at work, too. Let's not forget that ECN is a mouthpiece for industry -- and caps on carbon emissions are not exactly beneficial to what might be considered prosperity in the eyes of the industrialist.
Lightening rods on 3/12/2009 1:45:00 PM writes: It is easy to disagree but there should be no disagreement that CO2 is bad for many many reasons. Al is the lightening rod attracting the contraversy but there is a purpose: to warn us of the worse case possibilities. What gets forgotten is how easy it would be to convert to LED lighting, and increase PV and wind electric generation in ways that would highly benefit the economy. The benefits come from advanced technology in the public sector and freeing from oil dependancy. FOCUS on the message and DO NOT get lost in the details before America suffers another 30 years of analysis paralysis.
Flat Earthers on 3/12/2009 1:45:00 PM writes: 99% of climatologists – the actual experts, not some geologist professor or scientist/engineer form other fields, politician, talking head… - in peer reviewed papers agree that Global Warming is real and that some of this warming is due to the production of greenhouse gases by humans. So, why are so many people more than willing to disbelieve them? It is truly baffling. All we get is Al Gore bashing by right wing ideologs that have been bamboozled by right wing extremists only interested in feathering their own nests and screw ours, and presumably their, children and grandchildren. This comes from so called family values people. What is wrong with wanting a cleaner planet and to get off our dependence on foreign oil – a resource that will get more expensive to produce and will run out in any case? For people with any imagination, there are whole new markets just waiting to be picked. This should be a right wingers dream. Instead, we get people just writing silly, mindless, petty things about Al Gore. Grow up, face reality, and get into the 21st century for God’s sake.
Iff A Then B on 3/12/2009 1:49:00 PM writes: The premise that global warming exists, is particularly interesting, in that it’s supporting rationale seems to be ‘ If A then B’. This global warming premise would be believable if an empirical relationship between A and B were established.
Moving forward on 3/12/2009 1:53:00 PM writes: The skepticism and debates about everything related to global warming should continue. This is healthy given that we are talking about multi-decade phenomena of which we have incomplete insight. However, I think the article should have added these thoughts. 1. From a public policy perspective, creating the urgency to do something about global warming has got us all thinking and acting in more positive and sustainable ways. Whether or not global warming pans out to be a sustained hazard really doesn't matter. The change towards a more sustainable lifestyle is worth it in the long term. Already we have seen tremendous upside to the quality of life indicators. 2. The skeptics can remain skeptical, but they should not stay on the wrong side of history and progress. Every dollar spent on conservation today has tremendous upside for the planet. Every pound of CO2 not emitted translates into tremendous upside for the planet, the biological ecosystems and our health. This is the point. * Yes, speaking as a scientist and engineer, the debate over ‘whether the science of global warming is sound’ is over. We need to put our energies towards creating sustainable ecological technologies and products. It is time for action.
John on 3/12/2009 1:54:00 PM writes: With respect, Who The Hell are you? Your opinion piece is full of subjective and unsubstantial observations such as Al Gore "screeched". You choose to quote the society of flat earthers who want to ignore factual evidence. Here is what the epa has to say on the topic: "Scientists know with virtual certainty that: * Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood. * The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. * An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007). * The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet."
Mark S, Germantown Wisconsin on 3/12/2009 2:11:00 PM writes: Man made global warming is a hoax because no gw "scientist" mentions how much of it is due to nature. Natural gw (and cooling) has been going on since the oceans and atmosphere have been on earth. If mankind cannot influence "puny" hurricanes and tornadoes, how can larger gw be influenced? Face it, mm gw is about political control--now. A petition should be started to revoke Al Gore's dubious political Nobel Prize. The Gorons claim polar bears will die when they got thru--just fine--three earlier global glaciations eons ago. Duh, that was natural gw that caused those glaciers to melt. Right, Gorons? Or maybe Neanderthals had too many fires in their Fred Flintstone caves back then.
CA Dave on 3/12/2009 2:15:00 PM writes: Thanks, Editor, for a fitting contrast to the AP piece.
Dr. Tom on 3/12/2009 2:19:00 PM writes: Let me state at the outset, that I am not a climate scientist by profession or training - so I claim no expertise in judging the accuracy or the computer models or the validity of arguments pro or con. I would simply like to point out that the debate over global warming is very similar to a game of Russian roulette. If the skeptics are right, then we win - we get to continue to enjoy our profligate lifestyle with no concern over its impact on our environment. But if they are wrong, the consequences will be a disaster beyond our worst nightmare. Who wants to take that kind of chance?
Read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton on 3/12/2009 2:29:00 PM writes: OK, so it's only a novel. Not real. But it's absolutely worth a read. BTW, be sure to read the footnotes and reference materials as well. We are deluged by 'facts' and if we hear them often enough, they seem true. I appreciated a training experience (in industry) where the trainer asked "What's the first thing you should do when someone brings you 'bad data'?" Answer - question the data. I had to laugh - 'good data' might deserve to be questioned even more! Almost all data has bias - people really try to prove their point and position. The media does it every day; as do politicians, scientists, professors, industrialists and 'regular' people. No doubt, I'm doing it now. It's absolutely healthy to maintain a degree of skepticism, otherwise we'd still be living happily on our terracentric planet.
Marc on 3/12/2009 2:33:00 PM writes: "Moving Forward" hit the nail one the head: regardless of the dynamics behind global warming, human beings are taking positive steps towards a more sustainable future. We're embracing lifestyle changes and new technolgies which go far beyond mitigating global warming. ECN should step up to the plate and encourage movement in this direction within the electronics industry, rather than dismiss such change as alarmist.
Carbon-is-good-for-you Skeptic on 3/12/2009 2:37:00 PM writes: It's rather ironic that the editor, with no scientific background on the subject, has summarily labelled all scientists, politicians, environmentalists, and concerned citizens who believe that global warming is a threat to be misinformed "alarmists" with an agenda. In contrast, he points to one industry-backed conference that purposefully invited those who doubt global warming as true, benevolent seekers of truth. The rationale for this distinction? The industry group calls themselves "skeptics". Case closed! Anyone who is not skeptical must be up to no good! (I am skeptical that anyone paid for by greenhouse gas emitters would ever apply rational objective science to this issue, so therefore, I am right!)
Jon on 3/12/2009 2:40:00 PM writes: John on 3/12/2009 1:54:00 PM writes: With respect, Who The Hell are you? Answer He is obviously someone smarter than you
Global Warming: Science vs Activism on 3/12/2009 2:41:00 PM writes: i think first the question is not about 'global warming' the discussion should be about "climate change"...if you believe the anartic ice cores, and believe the past 500,000 years to be a good predicter of earth climate change in the next 100K years; then in fact the earth is heading into a glacial period. Glacial periods show a rise in C02 corrleated with them, but man has no definitive answer as which comes first. And it is not human hubris, but rather scientific rigor that asks, if earth now has very high levels of CO2 does that mean the glacial age will start sooner, might it be more severe, or might is be postoned, or modified in severity. Those are legitmate questions and areas of investigation. Do yourself a favor spread 5 bateria in a new petri dish with fresh agar (food) and watch what happens over a few weeks...plot number of bacteria over time. That isnt hubris, it is a fact. Is it hubris to then take earth as a petri dish where we have 6 billion people now, we are headed for 9 billion in some relatively short time. Human hubris is to assume that earth can support mankind and his goals with an unlimited population. It's climate change...not 'gloal warming'. It's about human waste accumulating to an extent to actually make life on this planet full of war, famine, polluted water, polluted air, and lack capability of to sustain such populations. Then one can always throw in the mix a narrow nationalistic view about i want my energy, and i dont want to depend on others...because if there is scarcity, we have to get our first. Now justify to the rest of the people on this planet, everyone should act the same way: i want mine, and i dont care about anyone else.
Old Timer on 3/12/2009 2:45:00 PM writes: There are 30,000 international scientists; 9000 of them Phd's who have signed a amnifesto and supplied evidence that there is no or near to no global warming by human activity. There is no rise in water level. NOAA has been taken over by alarmists and no longer reports world temperatures. When it did Russia had solid red and raised the average, otherwise world temps have een decreasing since 2002 for sure. Why Russia falsifying temps? To drill and become the main supplier of European oil. They know science can not bring the world out of oil dependence anytime soon. Putin sais they will take over europe without firing a shot, by controlling oil. We keep listening to radical environmentalists and people who want to "redistribute the wealth of the world" as our President has said he intends to do. This is political and typical socialist tactics of stopping debate and claiming its is proven when it is the exact opposite show who is behind the gl;obal warming "fraud". It is not freedom loving people who want to raise the standard of life for all, not destroy the West and take power for a few by starving the world of energy and taxing those that use energy out of business. This is damn political.
A Massive Hoax on 3/12/2009 2:53:00 PM writes: Congratulations to ECN for the courage to discuss this issue. The concept that mankind can somehow cause climatic changes is a massive hoax perpetuated by activists who are seeking monetary gain at the expense of destroying our great economic system.During the 1970's my company supplied electronic monitoring systems for various research facilities that were funded by grants to explore weather changes. The mantra by the alarmists at that time was global cooling who proclaimed that by the year 2000 the earth would be covered with ice. When I questioned some scientists about their data not agreeing with reality, they privately admitted that their data indeed did not support the global cooling concept, but should they publicly admit it, their funding would disappear. When it became very obvious that the world was not going to a new ice age, these charlatans quietly slipped into a global warming mode for new rounds of funds. Now, with precise monitoring of climatic data it is fast becoming obvious that a wide descriptancy exixts between the models used by the activists and reality. Some very fine REAL climatologists, such as Dr William Grey,Dr Roy Spencer and John Colman, among others have been speaking out against these activists. Unfortunately,they are largely ignored by the media and politicians and are deigned by the activists, who allow no dissent to their views. Thinking people should have a look at information easily available on these REAL climatologists' websites, evaluate for themselves what is the truth, and then have the courage to question the activists and their insidious agendas, just as ECN has done.
Marc on 3/12/2009 3:00:00 PM writes: "A Massive Hoax" said that human-caused global warming is a hoax perpetrated by activists seeking to destroy our economic system. Stop to consider that our "great" economic system, which is predicated on unfettered growth, would deplete the earth of its non-renewable resources if allowed to continue indefinitely. Global warming or not, steamrolling the planet for economic gain will render it unsuitable for human habitation. Our economic system as it stands is therefore incompatible with sustainability.
Engineer on 3/12/2009 3:02:00 PM writes: I agree with the author. When reputable members of the science community hold strong doubts about the reality of Global warming we should stop and consider what they are saying and not casually dismiss it. I think it is a very pretentious scientist who would say with any certainty that man is causing global warming. Who can say that they are able to accurately model the earth with all its geologic and atmospheric phenomena? If their assertions are truly based on scientific, empirical evidence then they would be able to withstand the scrutiny of others in the scientific community. Given the caustic, condescending attitude of those leading the cause for “Global warming” and the lack of true scientific debate reported in the public forum it is evident that the skeptic is not the one with the agenda in this issue.
willert on 3/12/2009 3:07:00 PM writes: Well we know what "BS" stands for
Robert on 3/12/2009 3:10:00 PM writes: Last week I read a NASA based report that said that the outer planets were showing warming trends. Do we blame that on the probes we sent out there, or is it due to the alien populations? Climate change has existed since the earth formed. Sometimes warmer, sometimes colder. There are the remains of sharks and cypress trees in North Dakota. And in more recent history, when Hannibal crossed the Alps with his elephants, there was no snow on his path. Today there is.
Larry on 3/12/2009 3:27:00 PM writes: We have had 21 days of sub zero temperatures this year and its a record for us. Please send us some of that global warming. We could really use it.
Deja Vu all over again! on 3/12/2009 3:30:00 PM writes: So how many remember the "reputable members" of the medical community who were "sceptics" of the "activist hoax" that cigarette smoking was actually bad for your health? How many people died of lung cancer while they maintained that such ideas were "unproven" and "controversial"? Consider this: 1: for the past few tens of thousands of years,the earth's climate has been pretty stable, and mankind has built up civilization where it is has been suitable for us. 2: We know without a doubt that our planet's climate has in the past been MUCH less friendly to our kind of life, and sometimes to all kinds of life. 3: Over the last 150 years or so, we have been digging or pumping millions of tons of carbon out of the ground, at the same time cutting down enormous forests, and then burning it! 4: Now people, primarily funded by those interested in keeping things the way they are saying "we can't be sure, it's not proven, it's too expensive, it will damage our comfortable way of life!". Well, as with many other scientific discussions, by the time it is proven to the satisfaction of the "sceptics", we will be too busy moving the 80% of civilization that lives right next to the ocean to higher ground, and planting crops in the Yukon, or wherever we can find where they'll grow.
I thank God every day Algore didn't make it to President on 3/12/2009 3:42:00 PM writes: The global warming scam is nothing more than taxation without representation. By this time in 4 years American's will have paid $600+ billion in taxes for 'air'. Didn't the Cheer's actor say that 'in 10 years if we don't protect the oceans we will all be dead' about 15 years ago? Can't we just say no to the global warming hoax? Who is Algore anyway? Wasn't he Bill Clinton's running mate who didn't have any responsibilities in those 8 years and expected to step into the highest office in the land for riding on Bill's coat-tails? What makes an ignorant elected official the smartest person on the planet and able to cure the worlds' ills after winning a popularity contest? I don't remember a colder winter than this one in decades. I would WELCOME global warming if it meant no more -29 degree nights. Kudo's to ECN for printing this. Hope the editors don't find a horse's head in their beds tomorrow morning.
Editor on 3/12/2009 3:55:00 PM writes: We felt that, even though we are getting a lot of flack, it was a worthy item to run. We've had subscription cancellations from people miffed about this on one side and the AP item we recently ran on the other. The bottom line is that we want to give you guys something that is engineering-related, but not simply component technology, to consider. You are the ones creating the systems and devices, facilities, and technologies that will be used to address this and many other controversial issues our country is facing. We need to talk about these things; it is too important to leave in the hands of the politicians. But in the process, please remember that we strive to be neutral as a publication in this. (The opinion of our various editors is a different story.) So if you don't agree with a particular item, give us a comment, argue with us, but don't stop your subscription or make it a personal issue just because a sensitive point is being debated here.
The Heartland Institute? on 3/12/2009 3:56:00 PM writes: You might want to read a little more by and about The Heartland Institute before using them as a scientific reference.
Hubris? on 3/12/2009 4:05:00 PM writes: Humans are quite capable of altering large, even planetary systems. We basically wiped out higher life forms in Lake Erie and created much larger "dead zones" around the mouths of many rivers with only a few decades of phosphate fertilizer use. We very substantially changed the concentration of atmospheric ozone with only a few decades of CFC use. We can shift the equilibrium state of huge natural systems with small inputs of phosphorous, chlorine, or CO2, especially if a positive feedback mechanism exists (like melting polar caps). Fortunately we didn't listen to industry and wait for "proof" (significant, long-term increases in skin cancer rates) before acting on the preliminary data and restricting CFC use. I hope we don't wait until sea levels rise a couple of feet before acting to reduce greenhouse emissions.
Ann Engineer on 3/12/2009 4:08:00 PM writes: I wish editors of trade journals would stick to their expertize when they write editorials. I read ECN to learn about digital technology - not for business advice, not for political opinions and NOT about climate change! Does the editor have grooming tips also?
Marc on 3/12/2009 4:11:00 PM writes: Regarding the Heartland Institute: they appear to be nothing more that a pseudo-lobbying group that promotes libertarian ideals and free market trade at any cost. They dispute many of the long-established claims about the dangers of tobacco, among other things. Skeptics they aren't. They definitely have an agenda of their own.
Herb, I prefer science over histeria on 3/12/2009 4:20:00 PM writes: I spent a lot of time in Africa where the local population complained that the weather was getting colder than it has been in the past years. I am not a skeptic but I believe that a real time study be undertaken analyzing our weather paterns from the beginning when records were kept to the present to see if our weather is really on an overall rise or if these weather changes have a long or short term pattern that fluctuates in world wide weather cycles. Perhaps Global cyles change regionally instead of globally and the warming trend is not a permanent upwar4d move as the activists claim.
Engineer on 3/12/2009 4:44:00 PM writes: Take the carrot of funding out from the scientist who then can be honest, and say no to global warming, and take a count of the number of scientist, not politicians, and you will find that in chemistry, the additional carbon put into the atmosphere does not make global warming. Gore is full of it!
Gore is a screecher? on 3/12/2009 4:53:00 PM writes: >> In his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore screeched... And this is where he lost me. Did Gore literally screech? Or is the writer using overloaded words to pre-shade the reader against Gore. I sincerely doubt that Gore actually screeched anything, though I'll admit that that is a very unpleasant image. Makes me not want to listen to Gore, no matter what the facts are - after all, HE'S A SCREECHER!!! Get back to me when you write something with at least a pretense of objectivity.
Mark S, Germantown Wisconsin on 3/12/2009 4:54:00 PM writes: To the editor: Sorry that some want to cancel subs. GW whether a hoax or not is a driving force of change in the US and the western world. Everyone is looking for a "political" solution to gw when one does not exist. I am disappointed in science because it is part of the military-industrial-academia complex. Scientists should lead with science. For example, plankton converts 10x the amt of CO2 into O2 that the Amazon rain forest does. Why arent scientists measuring the amt of plankton or increasing plankton as Scientific American suggested some years ago? Unfortunately, we live in a time where common sense cannot always be applied to solve problems. However, uncommon sense is now prerequisite. A solution to GL--or MMCC--will require interdisciplinary cooperation between science, economy, politics, and the average citizen. The socio-political warfare between liberals and conservatives is a fight over a corpse. One side is not going to be able to knock the opponent unconscious and become uncontested champion. Although liberals presently have the upper hand, it is temporary, as it is a case of jobs & economy versus global warming, etc. Right now I am an unemployed electrical engineer. Anyone care to guess what is first on my agenda? Furthermore, I seriously doubt the world population will reach 9B. There are too many forces working against the human race for it to continue as is. Eugenics will soon become a common conversation for everyone as a possible solution. Are our children going to want to support baby boomers and gen xers? I dont think so.
Rob Physicist on 3/12/2009 5:06:00 PM writes: One should investigate the "Heartland Institute" before assuming that they are a non biased entity. Traditionally these people have gotten their funding from the tobacco industry and surprisingly they are allies of the industry and fight against tobacco taxes and deny the effects of second hand smoke. The group is nothing more than another lobbying arm of industry. I pity the fools that use them as a credible source of information.
Earthling on 3/12/2009 5:08:00 PM writes: 1/ Global warming and cooling has been going on since before man was on earth, see the estimated temperatures in the Smithsonian. 2/ Man is being very arrogant in thinking he controls the Earth temperature. 3/ CO2 levels have swung back and forth over the millenia long before we "inherited" this earth. 4/ We are very "messy" with this earth. 5/ The correlation between CO2 and warming exists but this does not necessarily show cause and effect.
Can CO2 Cause Climate Change? on 3/12/2009 5:10:00 PM writes: Much has been expounded about increased levels of CO2 causing our climate to adversely change. But, consider this - there are roughly 24,000 molecules of water vapor in our earth's atmosphere to only one molecule of CO2. Logic would indicate that water vapor then would be a major contributor to influencing the climate rather than CO2. To say that CO2 can drastically change the climate is tough to accept. Water vapor is an atmosphere purifier and would tend to counter the increased levels of any impurities. We have repeatedly seen this occurance after volcanos and widespread fires have spewed large amounts of impurities into the atmosphere. After a few weeks or months, the air is back to normal again. Nature is constantly repurifying our air. Mankind generates considerably much less CO2 and other impurities than nature. Is there global warming and cooling? Of course. It's been happening to our earth since the beginning.Solar scientists attribute this phenomena to solar flares and others disturbances of the sun. Again, the sun has a much more overpowering influence on our atmosphere than our miniscule human emissions.
Inventor, Engineer on 3/12/2009 5:27:00 PM writes: It is the "skeptics" who use words like "screech" who have ulterior motives and an agenda. Jason, find a relevant topic for your next article.
M. Simon on 3/12/2009 5:30:00 PM writes: There is no doubt CO2 is bad. Why plants love it. The more the better. If we can get CO2 under 200 ppm we can start killing off all those evil plants. If we can get it below 90 ppm we can finish the job. A good first step would be to get all humans to stop breathing for a month straight. We can do it. Yes we can.
M. Simon on 3/12/2009 5:35:00 PM writes: The warming caused by the PDO and other ocean currents has been attributed to CO2. But not to worry the sunspot cycle is delayed and we could be entering a Maunder Minimum. If that is what is happening the warmists are sure going to look stupid. I expect that the answer to any stupid scientific pronouncement in 15 years will be "global warming" and it will be an epithet.
M. Simon on 3/12/2009 5:41:00 PM writes: Water vapor is 20X as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2. All you fools having a hot cup of coffee or even cooking dinner are contributing to global warming over and above the CO2 additions. And those burning natural gas to keep war are far worse than those using coal. Because coal is straight carbon. Methane is CH4. And all that H burning up is loading the atmosphere with water vapor. Natural gas needs to be outlawed. At once.
Curtis on 3/12/2009 5:46:00 PM writes: I havn't ever heard a good analysis of whether increased CO2 causes global warming or whether global warming causes increased CO2.
I Can't Believe the Stupid Comments!! on 3/12/2009 5:55:00 PM writes: Clowns! It's Climate CHANGE!! Some places colder/others hotter! Anyone who believes that the magatons of CO2 we are producing are trivial is numerically challenged. Pete
Clay Modeling on 3/12/2009 5:59:00 PM writes: Using words like "screech" may not be fair, I grant that. However, anyone who says "the debate is over" is using a bullying tactic to squelch dissenting views, and obviously doesn't understand how science works. The church pretty much said the same thing to Galileo, when he raised questions about the "concensus" over the earth's orbit. Maybe some of the dissenters do wear tinfoil hats, but some of the believers seem to wear archbishop's hats.
Correlation is not Causation on 3/12/2009 6:08:00 PM writes: If Man IS CAUSEING Global Warming based on a correlation of the charts Temperature and CO2....Then you can say that Ice Cream Sales CAUSES Shark Bites because both charts are correlated. Crime rates and CO2 levels are correlated.....So... CO2 must be CAUSEING Crime....Or...How about with less pirates over the years we have seen an increase in global warming over the same time period. Therefore, global warming is CAUSED by a lack of pirates. So become a pirate to fight Global Warming!!!! (Hey, have you noticed with all those extra Pirates off the coast of Somalia lately that it has been getting colder around the world.....MMmmm it must be working)
Clay Modeling on 3/12/2009 6:21:00 PM writes: Even a lot of AGW believers cringe at Al Gore as a spokesman. His movie was so loaded up with exaggerations and hyperbole that it became a "chicken little" parody. That is political activism, not science, and that's what Al wanted to achieve. Fine. If I tell you 10 things, and you discover that I lied about one of them, wouldn't you naturally be suspicious of the other nine?
False, but still true.... on 3/12/2009 6:53:00 PM writes: While I believe that man made Global Warmong is false, I also believe that we should be continuing to develop technology in renewable energy. This should be at most engouraged by the government in the form of tax incentives or grants for developement. this is not something that should be forced on us and sinlge hadedly re-form our economy where people are paying higher energy bills than mortages. When the time comes that the technology has achieved true efficiency (Balance of cost to PEOPLE and reduced polution) the economy will force the change, not the government.
AGW vs Nuclear Power on 3/13/2009 12:40:00 AM writes: If the AGW believers truly believed, they would support nuclear power. It is the only source of power that could replace coal, oil and natural gas in the forseeable future. If they (AGW) truly believe that we have 10, or 20 years before the world reaches a "tipping point" beyond which it can't recover, they wouldn't be opposing nuclear power. China and India are building two coal power plants per week, nothing the WEST can do can prevent the supposed "tipping point" from occurring, even if all our coal plants were shut down and we stopped using all internal combustion engines.
Support Exxon-Mobile on 3/13/2009 9:24:00 AM writes: I can not believe that your magazine is supporting the Exxon-Mobile view of Global Warming. I hope they paid you well, because you have lost a lot of credibility with me.
Jason on 3/13/2009 9:38:00 AM writes: ECN is not supporting anything, other than my right to express an opinion. This is my opinion, not ECN's. ECN believes in discussing these issues in a forum such as this, but as a publication, it takes no position either way.
Older Timer on 3/13/2009 9:47:00 AM writes: Note: The following represents the opinion of the editor and not neccesarily that of ECN Some People can't or won't read.
It's Strange on 3/13/2009 2:34:00 PM writes: You know, it's strange. We engineers have been pushed down by the global warning alarmist crowd the last few years. There is a huge pent-up need for new electrical power generating stations, refineries and accompaning infrastructure. Engineers would be in high demand, with the resulting high salaries, and ECN would triple its subscriptions, for the next 20 years - if only the politicians and activists would get out of the way. Wind power, solar power and other "alternate" sources of energy are not cost effective and the technology for other sources is nowhere in sight. Doing nothing, as we're presently doing, will only lead to increasingly higher costs of our consumer and industrial needs. All because someone has decreed that building new power plants and refineries 'might' hurt the environment.It defies logic.
You'd think on 3/15/2009 1:11:00 PM writes: You'd think engineers would be smart enough to grasp a simple fact of physics; CO2 is responsible for life on earth because it prevents heat from dissipating into space. Man has increased C02 to levels not seen in human history. More CO2 = more warming. Plus droughts are getting worse and the oceans are dying. Wind and solar don't work? You are the same people who thought the internet was a gimmick. We had no winter in Colorado this year.
Global Climate (GC) and a bit of physics&chemistry on 3/16/2009 10:14:00 AM writes: I don't know whether the GC would turn towards cooling or warming, but I strongly suspect that neither the AGW-s nor the oponents know that either. The whole problem should as soon as possible return to the real Scientists and be taken away from the loudly politicizing activists and committees monopolizing the issue and cynically pushing governments into a vertual trade of C02 emission, while turning the attention of societies away from the really harmful industrial emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, phosphorous and other compounds in form of oxides or dusts. We do know nevertheless, that GC is for millions of years oscillating, however, we are still not in the position to scientifically determine the length and the direction of the coming cycle. Dear "Curtis," your remark/question is very much to the point, and here is the reply: (1)our atmosphere(atm) contains 0.03-0.04% of C02 & ab. 4% of water. C02 is absorbing the solar radiation within a much narrower band than the water, and therefore it clearly tells us that C02 at the present concentration could in comparison with water, hardly be responsible for any greenhouse effect on our planet.(2)C02 is primarily used by the green vegetation on land & sea,is also massively absorbed by our oceans due to the v.high affinity of C02 to water,and therefore is not enlessly cumulated in the atm.(3)According to the principles of physics, the solubility of C02 in waters is direct proportional to its partial pressure in the atm. & is invert proportional to the temperature(temp) of the surface waters(within the first 100m); and it oscillates around an equilibrium, with day/night and seasonable changes in temp.of waters, however often with a delay.In other words, it is the temp. of water that determines the amount of C02 in the atm. and not the way around.(4)The predominant source of C02 on earth is still the volcanic activity and a continuous release of C02 under pressure through the porosity of the solid crust of earth, while human activity comprises ab.5-7% of C02, and could constitute less, if the largly incomplete global balance of C02 was finally rounded up.(5)C02 absorbed by the oceans is partly cummulated, partly turned into respective salts and gradually deposited in form of sediment rock & partly returned to the atm.(6)The real "tipping point"on our planet might arrive only if one day, in an unforeseeable future, the oceans dried up, however, at such a "point" in time, there could hardly be any organic life on the planet earth to monitor the phenomenon.
Just an Engineer on 3/16/2009 10:47:00 AM writes: While electrical engineers are not “climate scientists,” it is doubtful any group of individuals has a better understanding of negative feedback. This is what regulates the earth’s temperature. But you say – why not positive feedback, with a “tipping point!” For one thing, if there were a tipping point, wouldn’t we have tipped hundreds or thousand or millions of years ago? But, far more importantly, there is that nasty second-law of thermodynamics. A system will (must!) adjust itself to move heat from regions where there is more, to where there is less. The system finds the mechanism – no engineer required, sorry. Prime example: thunderstorms cooling a hot humid summer day. Engineers should understand this. Politicians and activists likely don’t have a clue.
Greatings from the sunny beaches of Norway on 3/16/2009 10:49:00 AM writes: I recently saw a documentary that stated that in the last ice age, the location that is now New York City was under 1000 feet of ice. Personally, if our actions on this planet are influencing climate change, I hope it is to the warmer.
Mr. Z on 3/16/2009 12:33:00 PM writes: I'm shocked that anyone would doubt the wisdon of the man who invented the internet!
Marc on 3/17/2009 1:25:00 PM writes: I think we need to keep global warming in perspective. It’s become such a stigmatized term that we often forget that some global warming is necessary to make the earth hospitable to life. Without the greenhouse effect, the temperature of the earth would be around –18degC. What we should be concerned about is the recent (within the past 300 years) trend toward ever-increasing sustained levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The EPA tells us that concentrations of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere have increased 36% and 147% since the 1700’s, higher than any other time during the past 650,000 years, judging by Antarctic ice core samples. Water vapor, although a potent greenhouse gas, varies little with human activity, according to the NOAA. Its feedback mechanism is also not entirely understood. Much water vapor in the atmosphere condeses into cloud formations, and clouds actually help reflect solar radiation away from the Earth, resulting in less warming. Concentrations of water vapor are not even routine sampled and analyzed by any major monitoring stations. Also, in reply to the comment about volcanic activity as a source of carbon dioxide: the USGS suggests that CO2 released by human activity is over 130 times greater than the amount released by volcanic activity (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php).
Ben S on 10/21/2009 7:56:00 AM writes: There is no doubt to anyone who is informed on this issue that anyone that tries to convince you there's any doubt that global warming is real, has a right-wing agenda. This is irresponsible and the right will be ashamed to have this part of their legacy (although I'm sure they'll be denying they ever denied against global warming a decade from now).