Would you global warming followers like to see some counter-opinion to man-caused global warming?

Question

From the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman
http://www.icecap.us/

From a weather scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

From an Australian weather scientist, Dr. Bob Carter, a PDF paper:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

Video portions of a related lecture:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/04/global-warming-tutorial-media-should-be-required-watch

To Tom K: It must be all those Republican-owned SUVs on Saturn and Mars!

***Best Answer?***
No way to pick a best answer here. I disagree with all the posters. Some of these responses border on lunacy, esp. the one about all babies being born with 100% toxicity. My only consolation is that there were only 5 nutty responses by doom and gloom, anti-mankind, anti-civilization, pro-curtailment of human freedoms type of people and not more! You guys go and chose your own best answer if you want. And, don't forget to wear your tin-foil hat when you go outside.

Answer 1

Did you read your own sources critically? Did you read your own sources at all?

'Survey questions (see Appendix) were sent to 345 U.S. contributors and reviewers of the IPCC’s “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis.” Respondents were asked to check the box that best represents their view.
Results and Discussion
Fifty-four responses were included in the final results (see Appendix)'

Notice a problem with this? Sample size? Respondents? Selection of information/questions? Did you notice any skews in the other information presented? Notice the problems with your sources generally? The words Weather scientist, weather questions, newsbusters and blog didn't ring alarm bells when you first reviewed the literature?


Yes I am always open to challenging my own opinions and read new information. I am not a climate scientist, it is not my area of expertise. My views may be wrong, that is why I have to constantly check out new information. But please read your own sources critically before you post questions such as this. You would find that other people would be much more open to new counter opinions if more people actually provided valid sources for their challenges.

Answer 2

I feel that man has certainly increased the normal output of CO2, methane, and even water vapors that all act as greenhouse gases. However, I don't feel that the entire global warming scenario can be attributed to us. Earth has been warming since the end of the last ice age. We weren't there in sufficient force to cause it. We continue to see these temperatures climb today. I fail to see a large enough break in this pattern to confidently say man has increased the speed in which it occurs,or that we have not caused any effect in the global climate. I feel that the some 100 years of detailed weather analysis is inadequate to derive answers from. Ice cores work great for informing us about atmospheric conditions, warming and cooling trends, and quantitative annual precipitation counts; however, I don't feel that ice core data is capable of giving us enough information about the day to day weather. So, I feel that we need continued research on the topic. But, what can it hurt to start living more responsibly? There are bound to be other negative effects associated with these gases to the environment.

Answer 3

With all due respect to your counter opinions, these scientists are meteorologists and they are responding to CO2 theory. Their job takes over above the surface of the planet. They do not have backgrounds in architecture, engineering, energy or emission production. The meteorologists are looking for solid science that isn't there and hence the discussion on climate change.

My job, expertise and certifications deal with temperature generation before it hits the atmosphere. Surface temperature monitoring isn't reflecting the true performance of development and is seriously flawed yet this is the science the meteorologists are looking for.

Due to no background in development and inaccurate surface monitoring, meteorologists don't have accurate data. According to the EPA, UN and everyone that used thermometers to supply their science for surface monitoring, they determined building participation to climate change as not worthy of considering.

I participated in 17,000 hours worth of research qualifying the temperatures and building performance that unfortunately the meteorologists above have never seen.

Buildings and man made development are not absorbing the sun's rays, the sun's rays and UV are causing the building material to generate extreme heat. The buildings aren't designed for the heat generated and we are treating the symptoms.

My problem with the CO2 theory is why are we discussing trapping heat while we generate the extreme heat on the surface of the planet? In our imaging of thousands of buildings in Canada and the US, it was the rule that buildings exteriors generated heat close to boiling temperature.

For the naysayers, if man is generating heat close to boiling temperature, isn't that global warming? If we are generating heat with development close to boiling temperature and treating the symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants, massive wasted electrical generation/toxic emissions, is that good for us?

When I showed a professor UV impact and immediately after sunrise he said " the greenhouse gas theory is seriously flawed " the heat generated from urban sprawl is incredible to see and horrifying at the same time

Go to http://www.thermoguy.com/globalwarming-heatgain.html and see what is really happening with every building. Meteorologists didn't believe buildings were generating heat, I would like them to look at the file above and tell me what it means to have every building producing atmospheric heat close to boiling temperature.

What does that do for hydrological cycles and does poisoning the entire population count as alarming? The toxicity ratio in babies before they take their first breath is 100%. Go to http://www.thermoguy.com and scroll down to the picture of the fetus to link to the study on polluted newborns.

This isn't just about elevated temperature but do you think boiling temperature air would melt ice elsewhere?

Answer 4

Everyone knows every problem on Earth is caused by humans but you. Global warming is so powerful an effect that it is even warming up other planets now, or did they forget to tell you that Mars and Saturn, at least, are also slightly warming?

How did we do that?

Answer 5

No. I don't care for opinions or counter-opinions at all. What I want to see is data. So far, global warming skeptics don't have any. Wake me when they do.

Answer 6

Opinions? No. Scientific facts? Sure, if you can find any, let me know.

In the meantime, here is my opinion of Coleman (you're at least the 7th person to ask a question about his paraonid rant, by the way):

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWwA7u27SODHeZEr2j6ctTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071108215457AAflXri

Answer 7

Surely you know that all these men received money from 'big oil' and that nothing they say can be trusted.

Only the believers are 'pure' in their science.