Does anthropogenic global warming actually exist?

Question

A new peer-reviewed study disputes the claim of former Vice President Al Gore and other green activists that global warming is caused by human activity and constitutes a "planetary emergency."
The study -- conducted by climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia -- finds that atmospheric warming patterns, or "fingerprints," over the last 30 years are not caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The report is published in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology. Results from the study greatly contradict the findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
.
.
.
The report concludes that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless -- but very costly."

BTW, Dana1981, you don't HAVE to read _anything_, including questions that you do not wish to answer. The snide remarks are not useful.

Answer 1

Yes, it exists. But we are not the cause of it. We are contributing to the rapid pace of its progression, yes, but not the cause.

As I mentioned in many answers (and in the question I asked) pertaining to this topic, I believe it's a natural process which is occuring. I am amazed how people are quick to scream 'but the scientists say so!!', yet they don't realize that the scientists have also said our world naturally cycles through cooling and warming periods. Also, not ALL scientists believe global warming is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

I always get heck when I voice my opinion about this. I've even had people automatically assume I don't care about the environment, and I just pollute it. That is completely untrue. I rarely drive my car, I keep my lights off if they're not needed, I recycle everything that I possibly can, and I reuse items when I can. I do my best, and I look for other alternatives where I can find them.

Politicians would have us believe there is a catastrophe about to happen because of global warming. There isn't a catastrophe coming because of it. Does anyone remember Y2K? What about that catastrophe? It never happened, did it? We will enter a period of warmer temperatures, perhaps even a subtropical climate throughout most of the world. We will adapt to it. Then we will go through another ice age. And again, we will adapt. Hopefully, with our knowledge this time around, and with current and new technologies, we will learn a lesson and not pollute our world so much the next time. I look forward to this new world we're seeing evolve before our eyes.

The polar ice caps in the north are melting, but aren't they getting larger in Antarctica? Isn't there more snowfall there? Why is that a bad thing? How do we determine what's good and bad at this point? The world flourishes better with warmer climates, considering there are better conditions for growing crops. Perhaps we'll be able to end this insufferable dependence on meat (since meat should be a small part of our diets anyway), and begin eating healthier fruits and vegetables. That means less cattle (which helps to lessen the impact on the environment), and also allows more farmland for growing crops (maybe even less chemicals in our food?). Who knows? Perhaps that will help lessen the obesity problem that so many people are complaining about right now.

I will say, though, that though I haven't been around that long (27 years), I really don't see that huge of a change in climate. I remember that there used to be more snow when I was a child, but the temperatures certainly don't seem that much warmer now than they did then.

Answer 2

It looks like a rehash of what Douglass and Singer summarized here in 2004, so what's new?:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15727

Does it really take 3 years to get completed research published, or is that the case only if it's difficult to find someone who reviews it and then considers it worth publishing? What was the response in the atmospheric science community at that time? Why wasn't the model updated in the meantime? I don't see any exodus of scientists from IPCC, and if there were people changing their minds, ExxonMobil's PR folks would be all over it.

Why weren't scientists convinced that this report had an impact, then or in the 3 years since? If scientists aren't impressed, why is is presented to the public as if it were significant?

Dr S Fred Singer is a co-author of the paper, and to facilitate discussion on it, here's a link to his press release on the paper you're referring to:
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

"Climate skeptic S. Fred Singer founded Science and Environmental Policy Project in 1990. SEPP's mission is 'to clarify the diverse problems facing the planet and, where necessary, arrive at effective, cost-conscious solutions.'"
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65
Dr S Fred Singer's Science and Environmental Policy Project has received $20,000 from ExxonMobil.

"SEPP was the author of the Leipzig Declaration, which was supposedly based on the 'scientfic' conclusions drawn from a November 1995 conference in Leipzig, Germany, which SEPP organized with the European Academy for Environmental Affairs. SEPP publicly used the Declaration to suggest there is little scientific consensus on global warming. According to P.R. Watch, news reporters discovered that in the end, twenty-five of the signers were TV weathermen - a profession that requires no in-depth knowledge of climate research. Other signers included a dentist, a medical laboratory researcher, a civil engineer, and an amateur meteorologist. Of the 33 European signers, four of them could not be located, 12 denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration."
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1

So are we to believe that this guy who has set up his own organization to work for the past 16 years to discredit global warming and allegedly has some misleading acts to his credit is now dealing in the truth?

John Christy has a history of changing his mind on global warming:
"While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed."
So global warming was not real, then it was real and the human contribution was significant, now his latest paper (not reflectd in the excerpt above) says it's not? Which way is it this week, John?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903

Another of the authors, David H. Douglass, a professor of physics, has been claiming this with Singer has been pushing the "the model is flawed" message since 2004:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15727

Of all of them John Christy is the most interesting to me. He's a professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville. He's in his field and I actually like that he seems to change his mind a lot since that indicates that he may be less attached than some to a particular answer.

Atmospheric science is extremely complicated and the models do need to be improved. I'm curious to see how this paper is received and where it might lead.

On the other hand, why do you suppose a scientist would veer sharply away from the scientific study to make the specific point that "attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly"? Suddenly he assumes the role of policymaker and economist? Given that slip I have to conclude that Singer seems to be acting squarely in his SEPP advocacy role, so I'm back to square one, questioning the context and intent of his research and result. To me it appears to have about as much credibility behind it as the Leipzig Declaration that Singer authored in 1995. He sure has been at this detractor business a long time. Can't the GW opposition find anyone without this kind of history to publish something?

Answer 3

There is a huge difference between exists and "planetary emergency". The only reason it is an emergency is because they don't spend 5 billion plus dollars a year unless there is a serious reason to. Getting hysterical over less than a degree is beyond asinine. Since CO2 only accounts for 5% of the green house effect, it is hard to see how it is going to destroy the planet. I am sure water has varied by amounts greater than that contributed by total CO2 and it seems to have a feedback mechanism to keep the temperature from spiking. That would mean there is NO PROBLEM at all if true.

Answer 4

There is no doubt that warming takes place in large cities.
Most likely it is black asphalt attracting and retaining heat.
But cities are a VERY SMALL portion of earth and more effected by winds/storms than the several days of 'heat inversion' per year.

Have these pseudo intellectual scientists explain what junior high school kids SHOULD Have Been Taught.
CO2 is Heavier than Air.

A major problem with the CO2 - Global Warming ‘THEORY’.
From the CO2 section of this web page: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
“Carbon dioxide gas is heavier than air and the gas can flow into in low-lying areas; breathing air with more than 30% CO2 can quickly induce unconsciousness and cause death. In volcanic or other areas where CO2 emissions occur, it is important to avoid small depressions and low areas that might be CO2 traps. The boundary between air and lethal gas can be extremely sharp; even a single step upslope may be adequate to escape death.”

Answer 5

See AGW alrarmist there is information to suggest that humans are not the casue of global warming. This is one of the many things that will be silenced though. We can't have people telling the turth we need to spread liberal lies. The truth is that global warming is natural.

Answer 6

The theory of Global warming and it's causes is getting weaker and weaker as time and facts catch up to it's meteoric popularity. I believe it will be a running joke 10 years from now......."remember when global warming was the popular theory". But by then the same people who perpetuated this scare tatic will be on to something else.
Al Gore will be known as the boy who cried wolf.

Answer 7

You can't expect facts to convince those that believe because of a religious conviction. Their thought process seems to be that humans are bad and that therefore anything that comes from humans must be bad. I know it seems simplistic but that is just about all that is left for the alarmists. They have become more shrill because they have less and less to go on yet the funding goes on and the scare tactics continue in spite of evidence to the contrary. Try to get one of them to admit that there might be some benefits to warming and you will find that by their silence, they speak volumes.

Answer 8

John R. Christy's and Fred Singer's names are on the paper.
Say no more.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=903
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html

Answer 9

Yes - but only in the minds of the true believers.

They belong in the 'Big Foot' and 'Area 51'category.

Answer 10

it's a fact that it does exist
some think it's a political matter but it really isn't
it's like debating over the color of the sky.