What caused global warning?

Answer 1

THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS STRIKE AGAIN

By William Rusher
Thursday, February 22, 2007

The media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.

The global-warming controversy is powered by three mighty engines, which are almost never recognized. The first is the natural human impulse to fear allegedly forthcoming disasters, especially if they are clothed in the raiments of scientific certitude. The media can be depended on to ferret out and wildly overhype any potential negative development that any so-called scientist is willing to predict and deplore. Remember "acid rain"? The factories of the American Midwest are supposedly belching enormous quantities of sulphurous gases into the air, which then drift eastward, pollute our pristine lakes and lay waste the Appalachian forests. We had barely had time to digest this awful news when the same media introduced us to the ghastly phenomenon called the "ozone hole," a gap in the Earth's protective layer of ozone that had developed (thanks to human pollutants) over the Antarctic and threatened to increase hugely the amount of deadly interstellar radiation reaching the planet's surface, causing millions of fatal skin cancers. The subsequent news that the ozone hole was actually diminishing was lost in the gratifying burst of terror over the discovery of global warming.

Forrmer U.S. vice president Al Gore speaks at a news conference for the 'Live Earth' concerts in Los Angeles,, California February 15, 2007. The planned July 7, 2007 concerts will take place in Sydney, Johannesburg, London and other cities to mobilize action to stop global warming. REUTERS/Fred Prouser (UNITED STATES) The second engine (which was also influential in the flaps over acid rain and the ozone hole) is the traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," which is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows. So the ancient cry has gone up, "Stop the corporations!"

The third and final engine is, as you might expect, money. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid "scientists" (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings.

The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

Part of the problem is that the earth's temperature is always in motion, up or down. At the moment, it is trending slightly up -- three-hundredths of a degree Celsius since 2001. Before that, in the midyears of the 20th century, it was actually falling -- providing grist for the media's hysterical predictions of a "new Ice Age" back in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, you can count on the liberals to demand savage cutbacks in the output of America's "greedy" corporations (never mind what that does to the economy) and on the opportunistic hacks in the science faculties of our universities to carve still bigger grants for themselves out of the federal and state budgets to finance more justifications for the panic.


William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy

Answer 2

William Rushner is not to be trusted.

Cows do not produce more greenhouse gasses than corporations do.

Cows & other livestock account for 100 million tons of methane per year which is 21 times more effective at capturing heat in the upper atmosphere as carbon dioxide. So, this is the same as 2.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide. However, corporations put more than this amount of methane into the atmosphere due to drilling for oil, natural gas leaks, and decaying garbage dumps.

Also, human activity accounts for around 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year which is way more than the 2.1 billion comparision amount shown above.

Is Willian even a scientist? No, he's a conservative think-tank columnist who definately has a political agenda to further. If you really want to know what causes global warming read what the scientists have to say.

Answer 3

Science merely means "knowledge", or "understanding". It did not cause anything. Do nor confuse science with technolgy (the practical application of scientific principles). Also, technology has nor CAUSED global warming, it has merely cotributed to it (the degree to which technology has contributed to global warning is debatable). However, ASSUMING that technology is a major cotributor to global warming; why is this? Increased economic activity, increasing prosperity (in certain countries) and above all increasing population, have all contributed to increased need for resources; particularly fossil fuels (basically for providing eletricity). Increased economic activity requires increased need for electrical power, which requires increased consumption of resources. One answer is, of course to decrease population (or at least reduce its rate of increase); but then we would produce another problem: increasing aged care needs.

Answer 4

This is a "hot topic" and a quick search online should reveal many articles, such as: what is global warming?; are we in a state of global warming?; and, is global warming natural or is it caused by humans?

The current belief of most everyone now is that the earth is indeed in a period of global warming. No, that doesn't mean 80 degree days in New England in the middle of winter. But that does mean hotter summers (with record temperatures in areas), less extreme winters, periods of severe rain as well as severe drought, and more extreme storms. We are indeed witnessing all of this, including the break up of ice packs at both poles.

What caused it? This is also debatable. Current literature from the scientific community suggests that we have an abundance of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in our atmosphere. The atmosphere typically contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases, in addition to about 3% water vapor. As you can see, carbon dioxide levels are very low. But slight increases in CO2 levels can cause what is called the "greenhouse effect". If you go to an actual greenhouse (where plants are raised), you'll find the environment warmer and more humid. Plants emit carbon dioxide at night. CO2 traps the heat from the sun. The elevated CO2 levels create this warmer environment in a greenhouse. However, plants take in CO2 during the day, so this overall effect becomes a bit more normalized.

But if humans chop down plants (like the destruction of forests and rain forests), we decrease the number of plants capable of taking in CO2 and normalizing any CO2 we put into the atmosphere. How do humans put CO2 into the atmosphere? Well, first we breathe out carbon dioxide, but the additional amount we personally put into the atmosphere is negligible. That is, our breathing hardly accounts for increased CO2 levels. However, the breakdown product of gasoline (which we use for all motors) and coal (used in power plants) is CO2. This is substantial and accounts for the increase in CO2 levels observed over the past 150 years - basically when the "Industrial Age" began.

With increased levels of CO2 and less plants to take it in, the earth becomes like a giant greenhouse. As such, we see increased temperatures across the globe, with corresponding shifts in weather.

The debate, amongst some, is that the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling. The dinosaurs lived in a very warm climate - also due to global warming. It is believed that volcanic eruptions from the relatively "young" earth kept CO2 levels high and increased temperatures, which was great for dinosaurs. The earth also has ice ages, where substantial cooling is observed. There have been even mini-ice ages in the recent past (just a few hundred years ago). This is often related to ocean currents.

Some argue that humans are not responsible for global warming and that the earth is just now going through a natural warming period. But the dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, which correlates directly to human activity, suggests that global warming is indeed related to our activities.

For more information, please do more literature searches on global warming. Also, watch the movie "An Inconvenient Truth". This should help you. And then it's up to you to decide if humans play a role in global warming or not. I believe we do.

Answer 5

Your buddy ALGORE's farcical film on "Global warming" has been shot down so many times, in so many ways, by so many credible people, with factual information..I wonder why you'd even mention it still?!?!?

I find it almost humorous that We "Man" and ALL of our activities >Might< put .003% of all of the CO2 into the atmosphere in a years time, while the earth itself introduces, easily x100 times as much in the same amount of time. ......Yet >We< are the ONLY problem???!???

Don't you find it strange that the scientist that developed the >Theory< of "Global Warming", has stated that his theory was >WRONG!< and has withdrew it as a possible explanation for the climatic change that we are experiencing?

Isn't it odd that Ice cores of 400,000 years of earth's climatic history show a cyclic cycle of >Both< CO2 & Temperature regularly over the past 400,000 years????

Yet, People Still insist that it's Us......and that doom & Gloom are going to reign supream....

You're really digging the kool-aid huh?

Whatever..........

T.S.

Answer 6

Ozone layer has nothing to do with global temperature, it only blocks UV rays.

Global warming, _as it really is_, is only a part of the natural cycle of temperature change which is centered around the freezing point of water.

Global warming, _as it has been presented to us_, does not exist. That verson is promulgated for the sole purpose of creating panic among those who cannot understand natural cycles.

Answer 7

Nature caused it which we have no control over whatsoever. It is a natural cycle of cooling and heating. The hubris of man thinking he can influence this world. Go out into the ocean and see how much influence you have over it.

Answer 8

#1 It is not because of ozone depletion
#2 It is warming
#3 There are way too many posts on this topic try a search the news anybody who pays attention in life. Even people who don't believe in it know the theory (even though they don't but they can say "greenhouse gases").

Answer 9

Global warning is a lies.

Answer 10

Burning Fossil Fuels