Readers React Angrily to Global Warming Column

I believe we have been misled by the current focus on Global Warming/CO2. It is like discussing the problem with cigarettes with a smoking friend. It is simply not relevant to discuss the Global Warming/ CO2 aspects of cigarette smoke if we are literally choking from the toxic particulates and must run out of the room. Last year, the "Health Issue of the Decade" was announced by the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the US EPA. It wasn''t global warming or CO2. It was particulates. (Basically, everything left over from the burning process that is not CO2.) The CO2/GlobalWarming issue is a gigantic smokescreen for the real issues at hand. How many people have been killed by global warming lately?? Yet, every year, millions of people die and many more are wounded, from the results of the burning process which makes CO2. Very few of those people die from inhaling CO2. CO2 levels were originally instigated as an easy indicator measurement of the TOTAL pollutant/particulate levels being emitted by pollutant sources. CO2 is not a toxic substance, unlike the hundreds of other pollutants measured. (Perhaps the powers that be decided that the word CO2 would have a better bandwagon ring to it than, say, carbon monoxide, ozone, arsenic, or mercury!) CO2 is given off by the burning process. However, the real problem on the planet is everything ELSE in the burning process, not the CO2! It''s time to wake up to fact and utilize the new patents for smoke-less, emission-free vortex incinerators, powerplants, and motors. Even the CO2 gets recovered in these devices

The most telling fact in this debate, as I see it, is that the oldest ice on earth we have found is 8 million years old, the caps are melting at a prodigious rate, and that within our lifetimes it may all be melted. The odds that human activity is not responsible for these changes are astronomically low. &>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&>&> Even if we did not happen to be responsible for global warming, we''d be fools not to try to prevent it if at all possible. Even a degree or two can mean the difference between extinction of unknown numbers of animals, flooding of millions of square miles of coast land, and enormous changes in demographics of parasites, diseases, and desert wasteland.

I''m on your side brother. The debate is far from over. Remember this: If Galileo, Capernicus, or Newton would have followed popular belief without question, where would be?

I went back and read the original "Chuck" column. I dont think it was written very well. The questions in the polls are so very different. "..serious threat to life on earth" who's life? Humans? Other species? Because the warming/changes are expected to occur over time and because humans can plan and have resources, it may not seem life threatening to this periodicals average reader. But, is it a serious problem? That is a vastly different question. To compare the responses of those two polls against each other is a stretch. It comes across as the author's point was already in his mind and he went looking for supporting evidence.

Local, city, county, state and the federal governments should be first to "go green." Politicians should not be elected to public office unless they agree to convert every government building and vehicle to renewable energy. There are at least three reasons why this should be so. When all levels of government are taken into account, they control 40% of the economy. With that kind of economic incentive anyone who wants to sell to the government will hasten to meet the demands of its largest single buyer. Government will no longer have to pass laws to enforce cafe standards for instance. Rather the Government will simply tell auto companies, we want to replace our fleet of vehicles but will not buy anything that does get at least 50 mpg if it is gasoline based, or it must be a hybrid, or it must be fueled with renewable fuels. Another reason Government should go green first is national security. Part of every oil dollar paid for Middle Eastern oil goes directly into the pocket of terrorists. If we convert to renewable fuels that we control, we defund terrorism and protect ourselves simultaneously. Yet another reason to heed Al Gore’s clarion call on global warming is economic security. OPEC can not ruin our economy if we convert to renewable fuels that we control. And finally, suppose Gore is right? When anyone hypes anything as much as AL Gore hypes global warming, I have my doubts. But I can’t see what is harmed by going green so why not? The military is doing some research on alternative and renewable energy. Whoever is the next president of the United States should institute a “Go Green or Go Home” policy for the military. Those who come up with energy saving devices or methods as well as those who implement alternative or renewable fuels should rise quickly through the ranks. Those who don’t should be encouraged to seek employment elsewhere. As resourceful as marines are, for instance, I would bet they could make surprising advances in fueling everything from jeeps to an entire base through alternative means if left to their own devices. The military has through it’s contractors developed the most effective weapons in the world. If this same level of effort is turned toward greening the military we will be a safer, more secure, and more independent nation. We will create new jobs and industries and the air and water will get cleaner as a benefit.

Mark What should be stark to any reasonable person is the fact that climate research encompasses all fields of science. Geologists can provide an accurate account of Earth''''''''s climate history, including any prevailing factors such as CO2 levels , volcanic debris, etc..etc. Chemists know how various gases and elements interact with each other. Without rambling on and on, there are very few areas of science that would not relate to climate behaviour. With regard to the oregon petition, as far as I am aware this is still ongoing and having seen the list of contributors you are clearly using activist tactic number 4 on my list. ie:- Slander. As far as the IPCC is concerned it probably doesn''''''''t matter what the scientists say. It is the politicians who suppy the funding that decide what the policy writers should say. The status of the scientists is reduced to nothing more than an impressive looking list to back up agenda driven propaganda. I am sure that when the politicians declare " The debate is over " many IPCC scientists are left scratching their heads.

Mark: I agree that we should seek out fraudulent science wherever we find it, and peer review is one way of doing it. But don't forget that the IPCC peer reviewed experts have been repeatedly handed their hats by "lesser" scientists and institutions (some with meager square footage). The Journal of Geophysical Research is credited with first debunking the hockey stick graph in an attempt to repeat the findings. Science magazine, who is often sited as debunking the debunkers later published an apology to the JGR after subsequent researchers (some very small) confirmed the fraudulent findings. The IPCC was "scolded" for stacking graphs rather than overlaying them for accurate comparison. Repeatedly the IPCC has omitted data like H2O contribution to climate change, flask CO2 measurements from years where they exist, and even satellite measurements from years where they exist--relying instead on proxy measurements. The IPCC has been chided for shifting data anachronistically and for mixing data from disparate sources. In the most famous case of its kind the IPCC mixed ice core samples (low CO2 quantity from a single region) prior to the mid 1800s with flask measurements of CO2 from a source on a volcano (high CO2 quantity from a different region). Source: Science Magazine DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5477.270 , 270 (2000); 289 Science et al . IPCC scientists for the most part have accepted these charges and have mended the data. What fails to reflect the changes, however, is the IPCC Policy Summaries, which are written by policy makers not the scientists. My recommendation is to skip the summaries and go straight to the research. What you'll find is a world much more balanced, focused, ready to accept debate from all sides.

Wow: Facts respect no person and favor those who have them. Scientists, experts, passionate researchers, or casual observers: I encourage and support debate from all sources. Those who make claims should back them up with research from credible sources; those who don't should be respectfully corrected with evidence from credible sources. Wow, what you are engaging in is number 2 on my list of how activists attempt to quell debate: ensure that only those with "approved" credentials can weigh in on a given subject.

The scientists the IPCC references actually have expertise in climate related areas. The OISM was a fraud from day one and the paper used to persuade signers of all backgrounds was not peer reviewed because it would not have stood up to such expert review. This conclusion was also drawn by the NAS and Scientific American. The difference between the distillation of climate science by IPCC and a paper produced by a ~15,000 square foot ''institute'' with only one full time person and several volunteers should be stark to any reasonable person.

To Wow we didn't do our research did we ?. We are told that 2,500 scientists listed by the IPCC believe that global warming is man made. It is a fact that 18,000 scientists have signed the Oregon petition stating that global warming is not man made. Well - Mr Wow ! You are an accountant so how about doing the maths !!.

Just out of curiosity, Wow, what are your educational credentials?

Wow, no need for hostility and name-calling, friend. And it's a low blow to lump myself and the other "Global Warming Deniers" with accountants. Considering this is a Design News blog, it's unlikely that any of the participants are accountants. I suggest you read some of Dr. Eckleburg's references in the earlier entry.

It is pretty funny that sooooo untrained people think they know more than the scientific community at large. Global Warming Deniers are turning out to be some of the most egotistical people in the country. ''I''m an accountant, but I''ll tell, those scientists are wrong! I know better cause I read this article in blah blah blah pundit rag. Years and years of education and experience in the subject is nothing compared to the four paragraphs I read!" What a bunch of morons.

ctemp, just exactly how has the government been subsidizing gas? The truth is that the government taxes gas.

does anyone agree that although climate change is important, that sustainability is also important? in regards to climate change, would it be a bad thing if we could be come energy independent as a country (meaning the usa). if we stopped subsidizing gas (or at least phased out the subsidies over time) it seems that there is plenty of energy in the sun and other forms of energy to help us be an energy independent nation. is that a bad thing?

Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the Earth's temperature. In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the cause of the recent warming trend. The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much less do, to correct the situation. Thomas Laprade 480 Rupert St. Thunder Bay, Ont. Canada Ph. 807 3457258

The real consensus is that co2 cannot cause global warming. It's the other way around. More than 17,000 real scientists agree. see: www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

I agree that there seems to be little evidence of man's small contribution to CO2 levels increasing global warming. Incidentally, National Geographic, among others, has recently reported that the ice caps are melting - not on Earth but on Mars. Regarding the idea that "consensus science" is the way that science should or normally does progress - that simply is not true. For example, when Galileo suggested that maybe the Earth was not the center of the Universe, "everyone" knew this was wrong and that the debate was over. For his heresy Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life. Fortunately the debate was not over and the real scientists were able to progress.

Matt: The earth has seen paleoclimate CO2 levels many times as high as they are now. Even recent preindustrial history shows higher levels. Look at the work of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland. freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1844968/posts And where do I think the CO2 goes. Several places. Plants use the CO2 to produce oxygen, the oceans absorb CO2, and the CO2 that makes it into the upper atmosphere escapes into space. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink As for more pollution in the last 150 years. I agree that we pollute far too much, but mother nature has us beat many times over in greenhouse gas emission. We produce a meager 3% of total CO2, which is itself a meager 3% of our atmosphere. And CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas when compared with H2O, water vapor (even the IPCC says water vapor contributes 66-90% of global warming), of which we produce very little. That said, atmospheric makeup in paleoclimates was many times more noxious (relatively higher methane, CO2, etc). Eventually: Look up the work of Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab. It's not online, that I can find, so you'll actually have to go to a library. It's one of the most comprehensive examination of its kind. This study is much more than trend data, like IPCC findings. This is a year by year multi-source comparison of CO2 levels and solar radiation data as they relate to temperature. The results are truly astonishing. The summary would be: global CO2 levels follow temperature increases, and temperature increases follow solar radiation increases. For a more cursary examination, check out the 1000 year multi-phase (ice core, tree ring, poleo-research) study by Dr. Solanki et al. from a joint Swiss and German research team. telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html There are far more than two sides to every story, and the sound data doesn't support anthropogenic global warming.

Yes there''s also a "debate" about evolution too, there are "two sides" to every story. Especially when you need a second side to avoid reality. Unless you are over 60 years old, eventually, you will see the results if ignorance and inaction. The problem is, so will my kid. But we''ve been turned into consumer zombies so perhaps it''s better that we destroy ourselves!

You people are fools. Never before has the earth had so much CO2 and other gasses enter its atmosphere, not in the billions of years the earth has been around. Where do you think the gasses go? They get trapped in the atmosphere and cause the earth to heat up. There has been more pollution in the last 150 years than in the all the previous history ever.

we dont believe global warming

if al gore dies , these myths will finish

global warming iss a hooey and hoax