HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
Blogs
Automotive News

Global Warming: Are the Skeptics Right?

< Previous Page 3 / 3
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 3/54  >  >>
William K.
User Rank
Platinum
Global warming causes increased CO2
William K.   12/4/2013 9:33:31 PM
NO RATINGS
I came across an interesting article a while ago, and found my copy again recently. The author presented a very reasonable explanation of how global warming does cause an increase in th amount of carbon dioxide produced. So even if all the data were completely correct, it may be that the interpretation is wrong, and that the cause and effect are incorrect. What happens if it is something else warming up the planet, and the result is an increase in carbon dioxide? And what happens if the frantic efforts to reduce it's production have no effect at all? And meanwhile whatever is in fact causing the warming trend gets no attention at all? Of course that suggests that the cause would actually be something that we could change, and not something like a long, slow cycle in the amount ofsolar energy delivered. 

Remember that old tale about the folks who believed that it was the tree branches waving that caused the wind to blow? But after they cut down all the trees to stop the wind they discovered that was not the case. And so now that country has to import all of it's wood, since they have no trees. We should examine our system and make sure we avoid making a similar mistake.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Re: Update your post with science and balance, Mr. Murray
CharlesM   12/4/2013 1:53:19 PM
NO RATINGS
ambassador, thanks for supporting my point that the original post is one-sided. However, you are just justifying it as not being balanced because you think there needs to be more such articles in order to balance against everything else in the media (outside of UBM). Journalism should be balanced when there is no wrong or right, just opinion. Here there are facts and science at stake. Presenting junk science as counterbalance for real science is not good journalism, "balanced" or not, just like the article's cherry-picking a handful of scientists' opinion as carrying convincing scientific weight is no substitute for sorting out the science and presenting that handful of scientists in context against the thousands of actual climate scientists (97-98% has been estimated without contradiction) who recognize AGW.

Thanks again, though, for acknowledging the bias in Mr. Murray's post.

jcbond_mi
User Rank
Gold
Re: Any Disagreement with Global Warming
jcbond_mi   12/4/2013 12:08:25 PM
Since you asked Paul:

The contention here is that humans are causing the climate to change.  However, millions of years before humans were on the scene, the earth was warmer than it is now.

Have you considered that earth may be at it's natural temperature for this period of time?  That if human activity never existed, we might still be at this same temperature right now?

There is a level of hubris in taking responsibility for current partially perceived state of system that is both massive and complex and only partially understood.  30 years ago, these same global warming advocates (and advocates they are) were decrying the coming ice age.

ambasssador
User Rank
Silver
Re: Update your post with science and balance, Mr. Murray
ambasssador   12/4/2013 11:50:37 AM
In my opinion, this is the balance.  If you added up the number of dissenting scientists as a percentage of believing scientists, and then you add up the number of dissenting articles, against the unbalanced believing articles, TV shows, books etc. I think the percentages would be pretty close.  I here your tone being political, which in my opinion is the problem.  This has become more of a political issue than a scientific one.

ambasssador
User Rank
Silver
Re: Global Warming
ambasssador   12/4/2013 11:46:19 AM
I am not one who disbelieves in globel climate change, but I am also a scientist and do not believe you have read the article correctly.  The article did not conclude that putting tons of CO2 in the atmosphere does not have unforseen affects, it just says there are dissenting opinions that don't believe it does what the supporters of global climate change are saying.  That includes both degree and malevolence.  THey say the data is inconclusive.  

That is the answer they would give to your question, and it is a scientifically valid answer.  It has not been proven scientifically to the level as such things as 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics etc.  THe problem lies in the ramifications of us being wrong.  If most are wrong about global climate change, then we have been hurt economically for a short period.  If most are correct, then we are in for some large trouble.  It makes sense to me to try to fix even potential problems.

paulzad
User Rank
Iron
Re: Any Disagreement with Global Warming
paulzad   12/4/2013 11:18:29 AM
NO RATINGS
Can you answer Kyoshi's question?

Kyoshi
User Rank
Silver
Global Warming
Kyoshi   12/4/2013 11:03:15 AM
It is true that global warming is not universally accepted by all scientists, just like the moon landing is not believed by all the general public.  But can anyone make a coherent argument that releasing millons of years of sequestered carbon into our atmosphere cannot be expected to have unforseen consequences?

jcbond_mi
User Rank
Gold
Any Disagreement with Global Warming
jcbond_mi   12/4/2013 10:53:33 AM
NO RATINGS
Interesting article.  For those of you defending the viewpoint presented to the angry global warming proponents who will accept no disent, I'd say don't bother.  Clearly, with these people it is at the point of radicalized religion.  Any attempt to debate this will shouted down with name-calling.  Anybody who disagrees is simply ignorant or worse.

CharlesM
User Rank
Silver
Update your post with science and balance, Mr. Murray
CharlesM   12/4/2013 10:26:55 AM
UBM gets a new black eye for dishonesty, anti-science, and biased journalism every time it re-spams the link to this deplorable post, as it did again today. If it or Charles Murray had an ounce of integrity they would update this with a corrected post that is accurate and honest to science.

A more balanced post would at least counterbalance your post about 16 scientists believing "no," with reporting at least equal weight to 255 real climate scientists who say "yes," the science of global warming is indeed incontrovertible.  It would only add to the interest of readers to point out that the Wall Street Journal refused to publish the rebuttal from these 255 scientists. Do you care, Mr. Murray?

As it stands, UBM and Charles Murray are just toeing the line for right-wing politics and the fossil fuel lobby.  That's no way for a legitimate media organization to operate.

William K.
User Rank
Platinum
What about the Maunder Minimum?
William K.   10/28/2013 10:16:54 PM
NO RATINGS
One very interesting thing that I came across recently pointed out thet toward the end of the 1600s(1645) and a bit into the 1700s(1715) there was a period of very few sunspots, and places froze that had not frozen before. There was another cycle of sunspot activity proposed, based on observed data, the Gleissburg cycle, which appears to be 87 years. The cooling of the earth at that time would appear to have been due to a lower output of solar energy, although what was recorded was the number of sunspots. It is lots eassier to count sunspots than to accurately measure solar energy flux, even today. 

This bit of old information backs up my assertion that our weather system is far more complex than what some folks believe, and also allows for activities for which we understand neither the cause nor the mechanism very well. So to assert that one clearly knows both what is happening and exactly why it is happening is not a very good way to achieve credibility.

<<  <  Page 3/54  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Automotive News
An MIT spin-off says it’s on track to do the near-impossible task of making an electric car battery that offers three times as much energy for a fraction of the cost.
Fiat-Chrysler Automobiles CEO Sergio Marchionne has again committed the colossal sin of speaking plainly, and electric vehicle advocates aren’t happy about it.
Electric vehicle batteries are progressing rapidly, but there’s still no sign on the horizon that the technology is going to revolutionize the auto industry anytime soon, experts said at The Battery Show in Detroit last week.
An engineering team from Ohio State University has set its sights on the unimaginable -- driving 400 mph in an electric vehicle.
We’ve collected photos of electric cars, designed for both the neighborhood blacktop and the commercial dragstrip. From the Crazyhorse Pinto and the Killacycle motorcycle to the Tesla Roadster and the 500-HP Renovo Coupe, we offer a peek at the blistering performance of the electric powertrain.
Design News Webinar Series
11/19/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
11/6/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
10/7/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Dec 1 - 5, An Introduction to Embedded Software Architecture and Design
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Last Archived Class
Sponsored by Littelfuse
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service