Global warming. A real threat or propoganda?

Question

I just saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and was wondering if anyone could refute the findings of 968 scientific studies that support the conclusion that global warming is a serious crisis.

Actually, as for the number of scientific studies that state the opposite, the number is zero.

Much like the tobacco industry did regarding the connection between smoking and cancer, I feel the oil companies propogate the idea that this is a debate and that scientists disagree. The truth is, scientists are in agreement, that the combination of cutting down the forests and the burning of carbon-based fuels is putting the earth in a serious position. It might be too gradual for us to see it, but the film showed charts going back as far as 650,000 years ago (ice core samples from antarctica) and the CO2 levels on the planet have never been this high. They spiked in the last 100 years and are now off the charts. All I can say is see the movie.

Answer 1

Here's something to dwell on:

Global Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics.

The simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts. In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.

Also in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."

In 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."

In 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming. In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue.

Global Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.

However, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the Policymakers Summary. Specifically, two key paragraphs written by the scientists were deleted. They said:
1. "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "No study to date had positively attributed all or part of the climate change to …man-made causes."

That was not the last time data has been manipulated by the IPCC to fit its political agenda. In 2005, a federal hurricane research scientist named Chris Landsea resigned from the UN-sponsored IPCC climate assessment team because his group’s leader had politicized the process. Landsea said in his resignation letter, "It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity had been due to global warming." He went onto say, "I personally cannot in good faith contribute to a process that I view as being both motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

In 2006, the voices of reason are speaking out louder than ever. Professor Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, says the global warming theory is neither environmental or scientific, but rather, "a self-created political fiasco." Carter explains that "Climate changes occur naturally all the time, partly in predicable cycles and partly in unpredictable cycles."

Meanwhile, more than 60 leading international climate change experts have gone on record to urge Canada’s new Prime Minster to carefully review global warming policies, warning that ‘"Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause."

So why, if scientists are researching the issue and if there is no consensus that global warming is a reality, is this voice not being heard? Why is a near panic building in the news media, on Capitol Hill and in research labs across the nation and in the international community? Answer: fear and money. Simply put, scientists know where the grants will come from to pay their salaries. The only ones who can openly oppose the party line of the day are those who don’t need the grants or who have some other source of funding. There aren’t many.

Professor Bob Carter says the pubic has been brainwashed by politicians and bureaucrats into believing world industrialization has created "climate change" that will lead to widespread disaster. However, he shows that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940 before industrialization really began, followed by a cooling between 1940 and 1965, a period during which human-caused emissions were accelerating.
In fact, looking deeper into history reveals that global warming and cooling are simply a regular occurrence. According to Robert Essenhigh, Professor of energy conservation at Ohio State University, the ice sheets at the poles have been melting since the early 1900’s and the Earth’s warming had begun about the middle 1600s.

That warming trend followed a 300 – 400 year cooling period, commonly known as the Little Ice Age, which came after the much hotter Medieval Warm Period, running roughly A.D.900 to 1300. During that period, the Vikings had two settlements on the west coast of Greenland. The settlements vanished with the onset of the Little Ice Age. This is the same area global warming scare mongers are panicked over because some grass is now growing there. In fact, history shows such growth is nothing new.

But what about all of those storms? We can see the weather changing before our eyes, we’re told. We are experiencing death, destruction, plagues, extinction, biblical catastrophes at alarming rates. Any fool can see… Those reports simply show how effective the propaganda machine has been.

The truth about the hurricanes is that during the past 35 years, the average number of "significant" tropical cyclones in the southern regions, including the Pacific Ocean and the Southern Indian Ocean, is about 28.5 storms per year. The breakdown by decade is: 1970s – 32.9; 1980s- 27.8; 1990s – 29.1; and the 2000s, so far – 25.0 It is interesting to note that so far in the 2000s the numbers are actually below average. Even if one calculates just the last ten years it only amounts to 28.5 – well within the average.

The fact is, researchers are now looking into Hurricane Katrina to determine its true strength. It is currently listed as a category 4 storm. But will probably be downgraded to a category 3. It is important to remember that the disaster of New Orleans was a result of bad government not taking care of the levies. There was relatively little actual hurricane damage.

Ice is melting on the edge of the caps because it always melts in the summer. But research shows that the core of the ice is actually thicker than ever. And the burning deserts? Well, that’s what deserts do, isn’t it?

It’s easy to distort the facts when you start from the premise that global warming is a fact and then one must only gather details to support the premise. It’s easy to find film footage of natural occurrences like melting ice and beached whales and then put your own caption on it -- especially when you are armed with millions of dollars in grant money and an impressive title to go with it. A published report in a prestigious magazine accompanied by a news story in a major news paper will lead to speeches in front of a gathering of ones peers and on to a book deal. It’s good to go along to get along.

So look out this summer. The Global Warming machine will be in full charge mode as Al Gore invades theaters with his new documentary entitled "An Inconvenient Truth." The primal panic will reach a deafening scream, sure to drown out the voice of reason and truth. The one that says there is no global warming!

Answer 2

You first need to realize that Al Gore is an environmental extremist and given to chicken-little hysteria. That means that this is a propaganda film, only showing one side, and only showing the worst-case predictions.

Also note that many of these scientists make a living from getting grants to show scary scenarios. These are the same people who 30 years ago were warning us of the coming ice age.

The global warming debate needs more sense and reason, and less running around screaming, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" like Gore is doing.

First, how confident are we in their predictions? Can we be sure they can predict ANYTHING correctly, based on such an insignificant number of data points? After all, the climate / solar activity cycles might be millenia long, and smaller trends being centuries long. They do not have the data to make accurate predictions.

Can they even say what the temperatures SHOULD be? I doubt it.

So all this hysteria is over a slight warming trend that's been going on for decades and is not unusual for the Earth. And even if there is, there's nothing we can do about it.

You see, since it was formed, the Earth has constantly gone through atmospheric and climatic changes. Do these scientists think they are God that they know how the Earth should be? No, they don't.

Answer 3

For those not around the schooling system or heck not even born yet in the 70's and 80's there was the philosophy of global COOLING...."MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen, writing ina journal of the libertarian Cato Institute, repeated the charge: "The global cooling tren of the 1950s and 1960s led toa minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s...the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria."

" It is no surprise that that those who carry the pitchfors and torches of global warming army are nearly universally of liberal politacal ben, which tends to oppose capitalism for other reasons as well. Nor is it surprising that political and phiplosophical conservatives pooh-pooh global warming as they a generation ago refused to believe the horror stories of global cooling."

"...Modern civiliaztion if destroying the world, and only global governance can save us. Free people are inherently self-destructive: to save themselves, they must turn over their power over their own lives to experts. At bottom, what htis means is that you don't what is good for you, but experts do."

I'm not saying the author (Morris E. Chafetz, M.D.) of the quotes above is correct or wrong, just showing how others do not view the movie you mentioned as the "truth". I do believe that no matter what the goverments do and if all the actions requested by KATO etc...occur that ONE massive volcano eruption could cause more global warming than all of the nations combined and render all the "requirements" enviromentlist demand mute.

Answer 4

Wrong!!!!!!

There are many studies that would repudiate everything you saw in that nice piece of fundraising infomercial.

Here's an inconvenient truth:

Many thousands of years ago, the majority of the northern hemisphere was covered with a massive ice sheet. Did cavemen cause it to melt by burning mammoth poo in their caves for warmth? If so, can we sue them now?

Do you OWN research and don't believe the propaganda. From 1880 to 1975 the mean temperature of the earth DECREASED. The recent increase in mean temperature lasted until 1998. From 1998 to 2004 the temperatures decreased again....

C'mon, how can we take anything from Al "I invented the internet" Gore seriously ?!?!?!?!?

Answer 5

I think there are other studies out there that have found that the earth may be going through a natural warming period... but then you have the studies you mentioned that say we are responsible for global warming...

What do you do when mommy and daddy scientists fight?

I don't know either... but it would appear that the majority of scientists think that we are at least partially responsible for global warming... so that is troubling to me...

Answer 6

It may or may not be a serious crisis what I haven't seen is that mankind is responsible for it. Its true that the average temp. world wide has risen a fraction of a degree but there isn't enough factual evidence that this isn't a normal cycle of the Earth. Please remember that those scientist were hand picked and that as many do not buy the premise that it is the result of man.

Answer 7

From what I have read, it seems that the real controversy is not whether or not the earth is growing warmer, it is whether or not human activity is contributing to that trend in any significant way. That remains an open question, though there has been mounting evidence that our activity plays a very significant part. Even if you accept that we are contributing, there is still considerable disagreement over what ought to be done about it.

Answer 8

How many of the 968 scientific studies can you cite? Where is their data? Can it be validated?

There is a school of thought that says global warming is cyclical...that things will cool down again in another 50-100 years. There's another school of thought that says it's just getting increasingly warmer.

I think propaganda is utilized to the fullest by both sides. We all owe it to ourselves and our posterity to educate ourselves with facts, not propaganda.

Answer 9

I'm sure there are 969 studies saying the opposite.

Answer 10

Only Bush would ask this question!! Nah, he doesn't believe scientist!!

Answer 11

only to what bush is up against