anyone have a link or a scientist that has a reasonable refutation to global warming?

Question

I've tried this several times in the political and science sections and gotten no answer that wasn't opinion. I am looking for real information, not urban legend or personal speculation. If there is real information out there why can't anyone provide it. I can understand that natural phenonom can be a contributing factor, but the effects such as glaciers and ice melting at a record pace in synch with record man-made pollution cannot be brushed off. If you have refuting evidence show it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

This is a good article about Dr. Gray...he is of the old school and is all about measurement...I did not see any scientific information from him in any article giving any attention to the glaciers disappearing or the tremendous differences in frozen days in the sub-arctic areas...he really doesn't do much more than say global warming isn't real...not a good source unless you can show some of his information

the medevil warming period was an event, but did all the glaciers melt. and you can't compare that adaquetly with today with massive amounts of greenhouse gases...not an answer to my question

Answer 1

Just pretend there's global warming and here's what you would do
We would start to look for alternative energy sources Clean burn fuels to replace fossil fuels
1. There would be research and development that would create dozens of new business"s in this search. It could dwarf the technology boom of the 90's
2. These business's would create or boost other business's to partner with, supply parts and services
3. All these new business's could create thousands upon thousands of new jobs1,2 and 3 would all be good for the economy
4. We could stop shoving money into the pockets of mega rich Arab Sheiks and oil companies and their CEO's. every time you pull up to the pump you know one of these SO B's gets a cut. It might even scare them into dropping the price of gas
5. It would take the power outta the hands of rogue country's in the middle east and make them a non factor by making us energy independent
6.And ............OH YEA we might clean up the environment so we don't leave our kids a filthy sewer of a planet!!!!

So what would be the drawback about doin this?

Answer 2

It is reasonably established that the earth's temperature is rising. It is well established that the atmospheric level of CO2 is rising. It is not at all established that there is a relation between these. The evidence comes from computer simulations, and if you have ever tried to compute a weather forecast, you know how perilous that can be. Now I cannot quote you chapter and verse of the evidence you have requested -- but the global warming fearmongers can't, either, because there isn't any.

I cannot resist commenting on two other responses. As for the preceding one asking why don't we get started, the answer is money. We are talking significant costs, for little immediate gain. And the objective should not be to create jobs -- that is silly -- but to make jobs unnecessary. In any event, the technology to go to alternative energy sources is limited -- nuclear energy is the only thing that comes close to making economic sense. And liquid hydrocarbon fuels will be with us indefinitely (if we couldn't get them out of the ground, we would have to synthesize them) because for transportation purposes, and particularly for aircraft, there is no viable alternative.

As for the subsequent response, I am most favorably impressed. The chap has done his homework, and the numbers pass basic sanity check.

Answer 3

"Professor de Freitas, as correctly reported in the accompanying story, has lined up with seven American climate scientists in a submission to be presented to the Supreme Court by legal counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute opposed to the move that would make carbon dioxide a pollutant under the US Clean Air Act. The CEI received money from oil giant ExxonMobil in the past, but not this year.

Professor de Freitas points out that the submission he helped to prepare was written in September and October this year, that he has no connection with oil companies, and that his comments or research findings on climate change are not influenced by industry, directly or indirectly."

"Professor De Freitas said attacking scientists who promoted scepticism as agents funded by the fossil-fuel industry showed how easily the truth could be distorted."

Search Google.com for 'refutes Global Warming' and get a million pages of hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Answer 4

There is a movie that al gore made called the inconvient truth, It starts out with what global warming is and that what it does to the earth and how we can solve.There are amazing photographs and statictics, i recomend it to everyone

Answer 5

Key Points:
the textbook derivation of globally averaged greenhouse, using Stefan's Constant, evaluates to roughly 33 °C and 150 Wm-2

the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Equation 6.1) states: "The climate sensitivity parameter (global mean surface temperature response ΔTs to the radiative forcing ΔF) is defined as: ΔTs / ΔF = λ"

a blackbody-equivalent Earth climate sensitivity parameter (λ) would be 33 / 150 = 0.22 °C per Wm-2 substituting the values from Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget (Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997) produces a λ value of ~0.1 K per Wm-2, as does using values derived by Professor Roger Pielke, Sr. and this is in agreement with the sensitivity derived by Idso in eight natural experiments described in CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change

Earth then responds at less than half the rate of a perfect blackbody due to a preponderance of negative feedbacks

climate models use λ values of 0.75 ± 0.25 °C per Wm-2, 5-10 times greater than empirical measures support

Hansen (and GISS model E) prematurely claimed support for these extreme values in Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications, releasing Earth’s Energy Out of Balance: The Smoking Gun for Global Warming

continued measurement showed model E was incorrectly dumping heat into the modeled oceans at a rate of more than 0.8 Wm-2 when it should have been removing it at about -1.0 Wm-2, destroying the claim of agreement between model and real world

climate models produce excessive future climate warming estimates due to erroneously large λ values

a realistic value for estimated warming induced by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is about 0.4 °C.

Junk Science has many more papers on Global Warming facts and myths

Answer 6

I think Dr. William Gray at Colorado State University is a leading global warming skeptic.

http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/dept/facmembers/gray.php

Addendum... Why the hell are you flaming ME? All I did was answer the damned question. I never said I AGREED with him!

Answer 7

Ooooh, that's an easy one. No-one does, because there is no reasonable refutation.

Good question, but you won't get a good answer.

Answer 8

Who cares

One degree in 200 years. Call me when it's worth worrying about say 50,60 degrees above normal.

It's a marketing ploy from the Plutocrats to trick you into giving them more $$$


Go big Red Go

Answer 9

Al Gore.

Answer 10

http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

There is a lot more of evidence on the net, but this is just one!!!