Why Global Warming and Ozone depletion is not human caused.

[danarhea]

Oh yes. There is one more consequence that comes when hydroxyl radicals do their job. When they combine with sulfur based emissions, the raindrops they help seed are acidic in content. With enough sulphur based emissions, the result is acid rain.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have read numerous scientific studies from scientists based at universities and various other institutions. They are generally in agreement that humankind is generating greenhouse gasses sufficient to alter the climate and conditions on earth. Every one of these studies are funded by government grants or groups who are determined to prove human created greehouse gasses are causing global warming. The bottom line is, the scientists doing these studies are benefitted and keep the grant monies coming in if there is a human created problem. There would be no monies coming in if they should all mostly agree there is no problem or there is absolutely nothing humans can do about it.

I have read other scientific studies from scientists with no personal interest in the way the study came out. Almost universally, these have found no correlation between human activity and global warming.

Now I am no scientist, but I don't buy the theory that national policy should be based on a 'possibility that humankind is causing global warming.' That makes no more sense than building a dome over our houses or cities because we might get hit by an asteroid. I don't want to radically change my lifestyle without knowing I'll be doing some good in the process.

The scientific data seems to show that there are major climate shifts every 10,000 years or so. New Mexico is now 100% desert except for the high mountains and a slightly more moderate strip down it's eastern side. It once was ocean and then at another time rain forest. We humans sure haven't done anything to create those changes.

Some have mentioned increasing severity of storms when in fact we hit a peak in severity of hurricanes in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

I am all for being watchful and careful with our planet and I am as ferocious as anybody when it comes to protecting the environment. But that protection has to be coupled with practicality and common sense. Let's don't base policy on faulty science or just because somebody wants there to be a problem.

 

[danarhea]

I have read numerous scientific studies from scientists based at universities and various other institutions. They are generally in agreement that humankind is generating greenhouse gasses sufficient to alter the climate and conditions on earth. Every one of these studies are funded by government grants or groups who are determined to prove human created greehouse gasses are causing global warming. The bottom line is, the scientists doing these studies are benefitted and keep the grant monies coming in if there is a human created problem. There would be no monies coming in if they should all mostly agree there is no problem or there is absolutely nothing humans can do about it.

I have read other scientific studies from scientists with no personal interest in the way the study came out. Almost universally, these have found no correlation between human activity and global warming.

Now I am no scientist, but I don't buy the theory that national policy should be based on a 'possibility that humankind is causing global warming.' That makes no more sense than building a dome over our houses or cities because we might get hit by an asteroid. I don't want to radically change my lifestyle without knowing I'll be doing some good in the process.

The scientific data seems to show that there are major climate shifts every 10,000 years or so. New Mexico is now 100% desert except for the high mountains and a slightly more moderate strip down it's eastern side. It once was ocean and then at another time rain forest. We humans sure haven't done anything to create those changes.

Some have mentioned increasing severity of storms when in fact we hit a peak in severity of hurricanes in the 30's, 40's and 50's.

I am all for being watchful and careful with our planet and I am as ferocious as anybody when it comes to protecting the environment. But that protection has to be coupled with practicality and common sense. Let's don't base policy on faulty science or just because somebody wants there to be a problem.

Yes, studies and more studies, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that carbon and sulphur based gases allow uv to travel easily through them, but are resistant to infrared radiation, or in other words, heat. When you pour billions of tons of these compounds into the air each year, you are trying to tell me that there would be no effect? Please explain.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, studies and more studies, but it doesnt take a rocket scientist to realize that carbon and sulphur based gases allow uv to travel easily through them, but are resistant to infrared radiation, or in other words, heat. When you pour billions of tons of these compounds into the air each year, you are trying to tell me that there would be no effect? Please explain.

I already said I am no scientist and I do not claim expertise of any kind on this subject. I'm just reading opinions from scientists with no ax to grind who say the effect is negligible or that there is no credible evidence that there has been any effect. It's a big planet and I read recently that everybody on it could still fit into the State of Texas with no more population density that the City of San Francisco.

All I'm saying is that I want a good reason before I agree to policies that affect our quality of life. I don't want policies made on bad science or speculation with no foundation in verifiable fact.

 

[danarhea]

I already said I am no scientist and I do not claim expertise of any kind on this subject. I'm just reading opinions from scientists with no ax to grind who say the effect is negligible or that there is no credible evidence that there has been any effect. It's a big planet and I read recently that everybody on it could still fit into the State of Texas with no more population density that the City of San Francisco.

All I'm saying is that I want a good reason before I agree to policies that affect our quality of life. I don't want policies made on bad science or speculation with no foundation in verifiable fact.

Just about all mainstream scientists are telling us that there is a direct correlation between man made activities and global warming. Show me a link to a study that says different, and I will show you which Neocon think tank the author belongs to.

 

[robin]

The tobacco industry denied cancer can cause smoking.
The scientific evidence shows smoking can cause.
Who do you believe ?

The oil Industry & neocons deny global warming due to burning fossil fuels.
The scientific evidence shows burning fossil fuels is causing global warming.
Who do you believe ?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Just about all mainstream scientists are telling us that there is a direct correlation between man made activities and global warming. Show me a link to a study that says different, and I will show you which Neocon think tank the author belongs to.

Actually I've looked at a lot of studies that say different as well as talk to a prominent local scientist who has looked at reams of data on the subject and has come to the conclusion that the proponderance of unbiased science is indicating negligible evidence of human caused global warming. It is his opinion that the current warming trend is most likely just that: a trend completely consistent with normal ebb and flow of climatic change on Planet Earth. He belongs to no 'neocon think tank'.

Scientists whose funding depends on there being a problem with human generated global warming will generally find there is a problem. Show me the funding for these 'mainstream scientific studies' that would not be suspect as encouraging bias. If your idea of 'mainstream science' is that coming from decidedly Leftwing sources, then those would be as suspect as those coming from somebody with a different ax to grind.

Remember that many of those scientists who are putting out dire warnings for global warming were going to international conferences to discuss the dire warnings about global cooling just 20 years before.

Robin writes

The tobacco industry denied cancer can cause smoking.
The scientific evidence shows smoking can cause.
Who do you believe ?

The oil Industry & neocons deny global warming due to burning fossil fuels.
The scientific evidence shows burning fossil fuels is causing global warming.
Who do you believe?

Scientist A is receiving a lucrative government grant to study whether human generated greenhouse gasses are contributing to depletion of the ozone and/or global warming. He finds that there is probable evidence and thus receives more funding of which a substantial stipend goes into his personal bank account.

Scientist B is working on salary that will be unaffected no matter what the outcome of the study on the effect of human generated greenhouse gasses.
He can find to credible evidence that human activity is having any significant effect on global climatic trends.

Who do you believe?

Is it something that should be watched and studied? Of course. Should we go willy nilly about authorizing massive funding and ordering policies that compromise our economy and substantially alter our lifestyles and quality of life without scientific proof that it is necessary or would make a difference? I don't think so.

 

[robin]

Scientist A is receiving a lucrative government grant to study whether human generated greenhouse gasses are contributing to depletion of the ozone and/or global warming. He finds that there is probable evidence and thus receives more funding of which a substantial stipend goes into his personal bank account.

Scientist B is working on salary that will be unaffected no matter what the outcome of the study on the effect of human generated greenhouse gasses.
He can find to credible evidence that human activity is having any significant effect on global climatic trends.

Who do you believe?

That is supposition regarding how scientists are funded. Scientists with an axe to grind for the oil companies are more at risk of losing their jobs if they don't tow the line.

 

[AlbqOwl]

That is supposition regarding how scientists are funded. Scientists with an axe to grind for the oil companies are more at risk of losing their jobs if they don't toe the line.

You're missing my whole point I think. The point is we have to consider the possibility of bias from those whose funding is dependent on there being a problem with human generated greenhouse gasses. And yes, it is also prudent to think a scientist working for an oil company is likely to be tempted to tilt conclusions a bit too.

I give the most credibility to scientific opinion from those scientists who have no incentive to skew the data one way or the other. And from almost all of them, they are coming up with very different opinions than those we are seeing from academia and/or Leftwing think tanks.

 

[robin]

We know oil company scientists have an axe to grind.
Where is your evidence that impartial government scientists are hell bent on proving global waring is do to human activity & also that these scientists would lose funding if that were shown not to be the case ?

 

[AlbqOwl]

We know oil company scientists have an axe to grind.
Where is your evidence that impartial government scientists are hell bent on proving global waring is do to human activity & also that these scientists would lose funding if that were shown not to be the case ?

The 'evidence' is in simple logic. There are no doubt scientists with integrity who receive funding from those with an ax to grind. But the fact remains that virtually all the scientists from academia funded by government grants and/or funded by left wingers mostly reach one conclusion, while independent scientists funded by those with no vested interest in the outcome mostly reach quite another.

Which do you think is the more reasonable to give the most credibility to?

No matter how badly we want to believe that something is a certain way, all the wanting in the world will not make it so. What is, is.

You see I am quite willing to be convinced that human generated global warming is a fact and that we must alter our economy, liestyle, and quality of life to save the planet. I'm saying that nobody has convinced me yet that this is true.

Are you willing to be convinced that global warming has nothing to do with human activity? Are you willing to even consider that possibility

Nobody is going to convince me with cookie cutter science that simply doesn't hold up under close scrutiny no matter how many scientists fall all over themselves to agree with each other.

I do want to know regardless of the way it turns out.

 

[robin]

The 'evidence' is in simple logic. There are no doubt scientists with integrity who receive funding from those with an ax to grind. But the fact remains that virtually all the scientists from academia funded by government grants and/or funded by left wingers mostly reach one conclusion, while independent scientists funded by those with no vested interest in the outcome mostly reach quite another.

Examples please ?

Are you willing to be convinced that global warming has nothing to do with human activity? Are you willing to even consider that possibility

Unlikely conclusion since it's a proven fact that methane & CO2 absorb more IR than N2 or O2.
In fact how could it be the conclusion ?
The only question can be not.. Does it cause warming but .... How much of the warming is due to greehouse gasses from man's activities.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Okay Robin. You want evidence. The speech linked below is a report to the Senate that condenses a lot of information into one lengthy but comprehensive block of information. Numerous studies and opinon are cited within the body of it. As it is a report to the Senate, it should be okay to post in its entirety, but it is too long, so it's best read from the website.

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=236307

There is a plethora of data out there to look at.

 

[cnredd]

[Moderator mode]

This thread has been moved from "US Politics" to here...

[/Moderator mode]

 

[AlbqOwl]

But where is here?

 

[OnionCollection]

uh oh...

and that graph records up to 1999. The current figure is off the top of the graph (ie over 380ppm). If humans can significantly change the contents of the atmosphere, who is to say we won't end up changing the climate too?

 

[Dezaad]

I think it's interesting from Alb's link (to the Senate speech), that the data used to show a hockey stick like increase in temperature, was from tree ring data. Tree rings might tend to change size when carbon dioxide (an atmospheric nutrient for trees) increases.

One thing that I've seen overlooked with regard to whether or not current changes in C02 can cause significant changes in climate: While the science shows that C02 holds heat better than Nitrogen or Oxygen do, we would have to consider how much better it holds heat. This, in order to draw any conclusions about the likelihood of significant climate change due to C02.

To illustrate: Consider a simplified atmosphere... 33.3% Oxygen, 33.3% Nitrogen, 33.3% Carbon Dioxide, with an average temperature of 60 Degrees F. Suppose a rise in Carbon Dioxide to 50% caused the atmosphere to retain heat more efficiently, but only increased the average temperature by 1 degree F. Even if the atmosphere later became 100% Carbon Dioxide, we would be unlikely to experience significant climate change (this ignores for simplicity that humans and other animals would be gone without Oxygen).

It is not enough to simply point out that C02 retains heat better. You must show that increases in C02 have been the likely cause of already significant climate change. You must do this to show that C02 can have a significant future effect on climate. In short, you must show that the heat trapping ability of atmospheric C02 is efficient enough to warrant alarm.

 

[SKILMATIC]

The earth is getting hotter

 

[AlbqOwl]

The earth is getting hotter

It seems to be at the moment, though there are scientists who say that this is mostly due to shifts in climate among areas of the earth and taken as a whole there is negligible warming.

The question to be answered is any warming due to anything humans are doing, or is it the result of normal large scale cyclical climatic changes? I just want that question answered before we all radically change our lifestyles, put the economy at risk, and pour a lot of national treasury into a boondoggle, all based on bad science.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Welll all I can say is from what I know and what I can attest too from direct evidence and it is direct evidence that it is getting hotter and that the sun is stronger than 20years ago. Call it what you want but those are the facts at hand. Is it a direct correlation of what mans doing? Probably. But we dont know 100% if it is. But I do know one thing though. We do need to find another energy source other than crude oil. Its just getting too expensive.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

It seems to be at the moment, though there are scientists who say that this is mostly due to shifts in climate among areas of the earth and taken as a whole there is negligible warming.

The question to be answered is any warming due to anything humans are doing, or is it the result of normal large scale cyclical climatic changes? I just want that question answered before we all radically change our lifestyles, put the economy at risk, and pour a lot of national treasury into a boondoggle, all based on bad science.

I will take the general concensus of over 2000 scientists representing over 100 nations over the opinions of politicians, Limbaugh, and a few scientists working for the coal and oil industries any day.

Just does not sound like bad science to me.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I will take the general concensus of over 2000 scientists representing over 100 nations over the opinions of politicians, Limbaugh, and a few scientists working for the coal and oil industries any day.

Just does not sound like bad science to me.

Follow the money. Most of those 2000 scientists are simply citing a few studies funded by grants and conducted by scientists whose continued funding was contingent on them finding a problem.

I have yet to find an opinion by a climatologist or other scientists who does not receive funding based on there being a problem who concurs that there is evidence of human caused global warming. And these guys are not funded by the oil or coal companies either.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Follow the money. Most of those 2000 scientists are simply citing a few studies funded by grants and conducted by scientists whose continued funding was contingent on them finding a problem.

I have yet to find an opinion by a climatologist or other scientists who does not receive funding based on there being a problem who concurs that there is evidence of human caused global warming. And these guys are not funded by the oil or coal companies either.

I am following the money, that’s the problem. Maybe 1% of the climatologists out there are not convinced that Humans to one degree or another are influencing the climate. The majority of that 1% is either working for an industry that has a vested interest in the United States not doing something, or works for a right wing think tank. In fact, I can only think of one global warming denier than does not fit that description.

The goal of these industry groups is not to block change. They know that that facts as they have for the past several years will consistently catch up to them, but if they can delay change, they will and that’s what they are doing by playing down scientific consensus and greatly exaggerating any uncertainties.

There is no reasonable debate any longer that the earth is warming. There is no reasonable debate any longer than human activity is a contributing factor to that warming. The only reasonable debate is in the degree that which human activity contributes to that warming.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I am following the money, that’s the problem. Maybe 1% of the climatologists out there are not convinced that Humans to one degree or another are influencing the climate. The majority of that 1% is either working for an industry that has a vested interest in the United States not doing something, or works for a right wing think tank. In fact, I can only think of one global warming denier than does not fit that description.

The goal of these industry groups is not to block change. They know that that facts as they have for the past several years will consistently catch up to them, but if they can delay change, they will and that’s what they are doing by playing down scientific consensus and greatly exaggerating any uncertainties.

There is no reasonable debate any longer that the earth is warming. There is no reasonable debate any longer than human activity is a contributing factor to that warming. The only reasonable debate is in the degree that which human activity contributes to that warming.

Given that you have presented no proof of your assertion, I will respectfully disagree. I have done the research and your percentages are simply not credible. I don't care to hunt all that up again, so will express this as my opinion based on what I have seen, read, and have been told by scientists themselves.

I do not wish to change my lifestyle or agree to costly and disruptive policies based on what very well may be bad science. If there is credible evidence that such changes and policies are necessary, then I'll comply to the best of my ability. So far, I have seen no credible evidence.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Given that you have presented no proof of your assertion, I will respectfully disagree. I have done the research and your percentages are simply not credible. I don't care to hunt all that up again, so will express this as my opinion based on what I have seen, read, and have been told by scientists themselves.

I do not wish to change my lifestyle or agree to costly and disruptive policies based on what very well may be bad science. If there is credible evidence that such changes and policies are necessary, then I'll comply to the best of my ability. So far, I have seen no credible evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences along with 10 other leading world bodies, a group that is about as unbiased as one could get, released a report that stated the following:

“There is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring" and that "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities".

I will take the National Academy of Sciences over some politicians, Limbaugh, and The Hertitage Institute any day.

That is as clear as science generally gets on anything. Nothing is an absolute certainty, but I find it very hard to believe that the vast majority of the scientific community is wrong about this. There is a great deal of misinformation circulating around by some on the extreme right and industry funded groups.

You can read the release here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Moreover, I don’t think we are talking about huge changes to ones life. Anytime that we have mandated changes for environmental, safety, or national security purposes, innovation has always paved the way for society to adapt and the economy has always continued to prosper. The problem is without government intervention, there is no real incentive for industries to innovate in this area.

People have to understand that while there have been climatic changes on our planet before, the natural causes for those changes are well understood. In the case of Global Warming, there is no way to accuratly model the warming on natural causes alone.