What if the Global Warming pundits have got it all wrong?

Question

There is no scientific proof that so-called 'greenhouse gasses' cause global warming, yet frenzied efforts - all doomed to fail - are being made to reduce their production. Not only is this lining the pockets of the few to the detriment of the many, but it's also blinding those who should know better to the possibility that the yet undiscovered cause may actually be amenable to corrective human intervention. Surely it would be sensible to seek possible alternative causes than to subscribe to the purely speculative opinion of largely self-appointed 'experts' or the 'majority view'. Remember, the vast majority were once convinced that the earth was flat - and some still think it is! In other words, should we not seek for possible alternative causes of global warming - then look for a solution whilst also recognising that there may not actually be one!

For those who are interested - Yes, I do know about 'peer review' and as I have bachelors and masters degrees - in physics and electronics and 50+ years industrial experience - I guess I can claim to be a scientist! It's not the function of science to prove every crackpot theory and conjecture wrong but for the proponents to prove themselves right and the 'greenhouse gas' pundits haven't!

For goodness sake - I am not saying global warming doesn't exist but simply that we may not have correctly identified it's cause. Therefore we should look for possible alternative causes. What's wrong with that - or all minds now closed?

Answer 1

Imagine being a guy in your mid 40's studying global warming your whole career. Now you see that man isn't the cause of warming, it's just a natural cycle of the Earth.

Imagine having to say the last 20+ years of your life was for nothing, there nothing you have to show the work you've done here during your time on Earth.

This has to be very scary. Just knowing that you've pissed your life away instead of doing something lasting.

Who would give up? If this were me, I would cling to anyone who thought as I did and quickly discredit anyone who stated that my believes weren't real. I'm sure you would do the same thing.

Answer 2

Well I'm with you mate. I think the whole global warming industry is based on total bunkum for no other reason than to take more money out of our pockets!

Whatever is happening to the worlds atmosphere and the subsequent effect this is having on climate and weather systems is almost certainly a purely natural consequence. Whilst there may well be some argument for reducing the use of carbon based fuels for the benefit of peoples health, I doubt that doing so will make any real difference to how the world fits into the universe.

If it is inevitable that the earth should eventually explode and disintegrate, it will do so quite regardless of anything we mere humans might do!

Answer 3

This seems a serious question so I will be as helpful as possible.

You have already received many answers of which Trevor is the best and Dr Jello is the worst.

Further detailed scientific explanations can be found on the web site of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These people have been brought together by the Governments of the world and have clearly identified the cause of global warming, the consequences and the actions needed to deal with it.

Urgent action is needed by individuals and by Governments.

It is extremely important that you and others should examine the evidence and act upon the recommendations quickly because the longer we delay the more costly it becomes.

The issue of resource depletion (particularly of oil) is one that requires equally swift action because the economic and social consequences of running short of fossil fuels are so severe.

Fortunately the actions needed to deal with global warming and resource depletion are largely the same but as time goes by the costs and difficulties rise.

Answer 4

I fully understand the points you are making and appreciate that you're asking this question on an intelligent level.

In short, there is scientific proof that greenhouse gases cause global warming and this is something you can easily demonstrate for yourself.

The Sun of course is extremely hot, consequently the radiation it emits has a short wavelength. This solar radiation reaches us and it's what we feel as the warmth of the Sun. The Earth and everything on it absorbs solar radiation and warms up, when the ambient temperature falls the stored heat energy is re-radiated but because the Earth is cold (compared to the Sun) the emitted thermal radiation has a much longer wavelength.

This longwave radiation is absorbed more easily by the molecules of greenhouse gas than shortwave radiation and as a consequence the atmopshere warms up. This is of paramount importance, if the atmosphere were bereft of this property there would be no 'greenhouse effect', natural or otherwise, and planet Earth would have a temperature of -18°C. So cold that it would be a frozen ball of ice devoid of all life.

The energy absorbed by the greenhouse gases is subsequently emited in random directions, some of it goes out into space, some of it is emited downwards and back to Earth. It's this downward transmission of the fraction of radiant energy that is termed the greenhouse effect. Additionally, there is surface transfer of latent and sensible heat.

The absorption is due to the magnitude of molecular vibration of the GHG's being the same as the energy of the longer wavelength radiation.

The role played by greenhouse gases can be quantified, qualified, scentifically and mathematically proven. The basics are simple, the specifics are complex due to the lack of additive compounding, overlapping forcings etc. As such we can say that X, Y and Z are grenhouse gases but have to assign a range in respect of the contribution they make to global warming.

As a physicist and given the above, you'll be able to devise your own experiment to measure the heat retaining properties of the greenhouse gases. For demonstration purposes you can do this at home by placing a thermometer in an environment consisting of different greenhouse gases (and different combinations of them) and exposing the environments to solar radiation.

With access to more sophisticated equipment (ie in a lab) you can run simulations of different atmopsheric compositions and obtain far more accurate results.

Answer 5

I've seen this theory in a few places, i've read it in some scientific journal (Can't remember which one, was either new scientist or scientific american), and I've saw it on tv, but there is a theory that the worlds climate change is because of the cycle of the sun. they also mentioned that it had something to do with clouds in the upper atmosphere (plane trails) that reflect too much radiation and keep the suns light in, a bit like how the planet venus manages to be about 400 degrees C.

Sorry that's a bit jumbled, i can't really remember.
What I will say though is that everyone seems to be backing one idea when there are many with just as much evidence and proof. There's more than just 2 explanations for climate change.

And how fickle the media be, in the 1970s there was a huge thing about 'global cooling', how soon we forget.

'Carbon dioxide' really isn't the enemy and all this stuff about carbon footprint is a complete load. I've said this before but:
Planting trees to make yourself 'carbon neutral' is akin to murdering somebody, having a baby and saying that you're 'murder neutral'.

Answer 6

There are two aspects of the carbon footprint- one is the amount of CO2 produced and the effect on greenhouse gasees, and two is the fact we don't have limitless reserves of oil and gas.

The truth is there are lots of good reasons to be more responsible about what we use- and only one is global warming.

The main way we are being asked to combat global warming is by being more responsible about what we use. Energy saving light bulbs actually save you money after the first month or so, and indeed given that they last longer than their incandescent counterparts are actually cheaper when you compare them properly.

Fact is even if global warming is a myth, only a fool believes that there is no other benefit to behaving responsibly.

Answer 7

The fact that CO2 produced by humans is causing global warming has been proven. Claiming there is "no evidence" doesn't make it so--it simply makes the so-called "skeptics" who keep repeating that sound like the complete fools they are. The only people like that are a few crackpots and some propagandists paid by the oil companies--oh, and the minority of ignorant people who are always gullible enough to be conned.

Answer 8

The global warming proponents have a "consensus of opinion." How can anyone armed with only hard evidence hope to be listened to? Plus Al Gore has declared "the debate is over."
In order for the global warming hoax to work the vast majority of people must be convinced that facts are irrelevant and "consensus of opinion" is all that matters. Unfortunately this tactic is working.

Answer 9

Maybe the problem is that scientists have crossed over a line into politics?
Many of them might be right, that permanent 'global warming' is happening, instead of a nornal, temporary phase in the long cycle of Earths temperature. Many deny that human activity is the main cause.
Scientists (professionally) should not tell societies how to govern themselves, how to divide resources between spending and saving, rich countries and poor ones etc.

Answer 10

They're not wrong. They're not "pundits", they're not "self-selected". They're 99+% of the worlds scientists backed by a mountain of data. And EVERY major scientific organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

You bring up an excellent example, but it goes against your case.

About 2000 years ago Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the Earth. After that, no one worthy of the name scientist thought the world was flat. The data was in, and that was that.

It was ignorant "skeptics" who ignored the data and the science who thought the world was flat.

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462