General discussion


Man-Caused Global Warming - Who's right, and why?

By maxwell edison ·
America's Al Gore, author of "Earth in the Balance", has called the internal combustion engine, a primary contributor to greenhouse gasses that cause "global warming", a worse threat to the Earth than nuclear weapons.

Australia's Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting has recently suggested that the Earth may be more resilient to global warming than first thought.

Sir David King, Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Office of Science and Technology, described the "global warming" threat worse as than terrorism.

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London said, "The notion that human activity is the controlling factor (of climate change) is inherently bogus. To believe that, you would have to believe that the sun, the oceans, the clouds, volcanic activity, and countless other factors do not play a major role in the weather.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (D) said, "The question of how and when we deal with the threat of global warming is one of the great tests for our generation of elected officials. The question is do we have the courage to begin to bring about the changes to protect us, our children and grandchildren?"

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe (R) said, "Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry (D) said, "Global warming is America's biggest threat since the Cold War."

The Bush White House has said there was not enough scientific evidence to blame industrial emissions for global warming.

Okay, what do the experts at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) think?

Professor Ronald Prinn, Head of MIT?s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, and Co-Director of MIT?s Joint Program on the Policy and Science of Global Change, said that, "global warming is the most difficult and important environmental problem that we face this century, and that it is a problem that we are going to have to solve, and we need to start forming solutions now.?

However, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a paper titled, Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty, "There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such troposphere warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures." (Published in The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.) Professor Lindzen has also pointed out that, "Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

For argument's sake, let's concede that the Earth's surface has warmed a bit (a very little bit) over the past century. But is that warming caused mainly by humans or by natural cycles?

Is all this man-caused "global warming" propaganda real or imagined? What do you believe, and why? Who do you believe, and why? And the $64,000 question, therefore what?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

131 total posts (Page 3 of 14)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

OK Maxwell I'll look up the story

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Suing people over global ...

But it was about some special interest groups planing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency {I think} for publishing some study papers that claimed that the Green House Effect was going to have some adverse impacts upon the planet.

The basis of their claim was the fact that there was no proven facts behind these studies so they "The Government Agency" involved should not be allowing these papers to be published in the first place. They also went on to say that by allowing these papers to be published it was adversely impacting upon their profitability so they where seeking punitive damages as well.

Now as I originally said I don't know! but when I see things like this happening where research is stopped for short term gain by special interest groups I get a bad feeling in my gut.

While I'm unsure about any potential threat that may be posed by Global Warming that isn't a natural occurrence I do begin to feel uneasy when I see this type of thing happening as to me it tends to make the whole argument more supportive when you see special interest groups trying to prevent any study and publication of Scientific findings.

But just to make you happy I'll dig out the copy of New Scientist and list the story and Issue that it came from will that make you happy?


Collapse -

Well Maxwell in connection to my so called

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Suing people over global ...

ludicrous claims If you would like to look up the 11 October 2003 Edition of New Scientist Number 2416 Australian copy on page 12 you will find an article headed "US court case challenges climate change warning" it is a half page article written by Fred Pearce and goes on to talk about how the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" is suing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy for failing to block the report which is titled "Climate Action Report 2002."

Anyway this group is claiming that the EPA has published "knowingly fictional" science and is using the courts to block any form of action on this report. There is also a quote that "Several State Governments that support moves to tackle global warming claim that the Bush Administration is sympathetic towards the legal action which they say is a "Sweetheart Suit" that undermines scientific claims about Global Warming."

Also as I was looking for that article I found the following that may be of interest it is in the 27 July 2002 edition of New Scientist on page 7 and is titled "Insurers count cost of Global Warming." This particular article is about 2/3 of a page long and is written by Fred Pearce {again} but it starts off with the following "Insurance Premiums against floods and other disasters are set to rocket because the world's biggest insurance companies are getting nervous about climate change. Swiss Re, a company that provides insurance to other insurers, warned in a report this week that premium hikes are inevitable."

Now I don't know personally if any of this is real but what I do know is that New Scientist is a respected source of information and not thought of as "Trendy Left Wing Propaganda."

If you like I can scan these articles in and e-mail them to you when my ISP gets their e-mail server working again hopefully tomorrow but there is one thing plainly clear here that I didn't make up the story that I refereed to in my original post it does exist so it is hardly as you so kindly put it a "ludicrous claim" just because you couldn't find doesn't mean that it doesn't exist but only that you didn't look hard enough particularly since the article in question is less than 12 months old you should have found it easily as you had the name of the publication so it wasn't as if you had to search the world to find something that you didn't know where to start looking. I might add that I tend to work from memory and this is most times fairly right as I have actually seen and read what I talk about and as such I don't need to resort to posting multiple URL's to try to prove a point particularly when I said in the very beginning that "I DIDN'T KNOW" but that I do get concerned when vested interest groups started taking action to stop publication of things like this. In all honesty if the subject had not been mentioned I wound never have read it and I certainly didn't think that it warranted any kind or investigative response but if it makes you happy so be it.

However I'm in complete agreement with you about the stupidity of suing on things like this as it can only be proved one way or the other after the event and by then it is far too late to do any thing preventive to stop this from happening. I personally think that the only people who gain from this type of action are the "Legal Whores" who are only too willing to take on court action just to line their pockets at everyone else's expense.


Collapse -

Colin - Many Thanks. . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Well Maxwell in connectio ...

...for finding that article. It was an interesting post indeed. It led me to look into it further, and my findings were just as interesting. You're right. There was a lawsuit filed just as you said.

Who/what is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one might ask? Well, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, called "the best environmental think tank in the country" by The Wall Street Journal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute focuses on the development and promotion of free market approaches to environmental policy. They believe that where individual property rights exist in environmental resources, the environment is most likely to be protected, and that market institutions more effectively allow for the realization of environmental values than political agencies and bureaucracies. As one of the leading proponents of free market environmentalism, CEI's program includes both an overall effort to reframe the environmental debate and a series of targeted projects to reform specific policies, ranging from federal land management and species protection to risk regulation and global warming.

In my estimation, they are also proponents of finding solutions to "global warming", but seek free-market approaches instead of, what they call, Eco-Socialism, a threat to Liberty around the World.

In the lawsuit you mentioned, you may be happy to hear that they withdrew that suit. Here's how it was explained:

Washington, D.C., November 6, 2003:

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) has publicly acknowledged that the National Assessment on Climate Change was not ?subjected to OSTP?s Information Quality Act guidelines.? This acknowledgement now appears prominently on the document posted on the U. S. Global Change Research Program?s web site ( With this admission, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has withdrawn its complaint in federal court that the National Assessment did not meet the minimal scientific standards required by the Federal Data Quality Act.

A subsequent product disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Report 2002, repeats many of the scientifically unsupportable assertions contained in the National Assessment and should now be subjected to FDQA guidelines, as should the next National Assessment due in October 2004.

?The record shows that the Clinton White House pressured bureaucrats to rush out an incomplete and inaccurate report despite protests from government scientists,? said Christopher C. Horner, Senior Fellow at CEI. ?The government also subsequently confirmed that the two climate models selected for the National Assessment are ?outliers? chosen to guarantee extreme results and are incapable of replicating even past climate trends.?

CEI argued in its complaint that the National Assessment violates legal requirements of objectivity and utility by employing computer models proven unreliable and by incorrectly revising climate history to portray the climate of the 20th century as unusual.

?We are pleased to see that the federal government has now put the public on notice that the National Assessment is propaganda, not science,? said Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming Policy at CEI. ?The next report must meet the minimal scientific standards required by the Federal Data Quality Act.?

Collapse -

The Competitive Enterprise Institute

by maxwell edison In reply to Well Maxwell in connectio ...

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of nearly 40 policy experts and other staff.

We are nationally recognized as a leading voice on a broad range of regulatory issues ranging from environmental laws to antitrust policy to regulatory risk. CEI is not a traditional "think tank." We frequently produce groundbreaking research on regulatory issues, but our work does not stop there. It is not enough to simply identify and articulate solutions to public policy problems; it is also necessary to defend and promote those solutions. For that reason, we are actively engaged in many phases of the public policy debate.

We reach out to the public and the media to ensure that our ideas are heard, work with policymakers to ensure that they are implemented and, when necessary, take our arguments to court to ensure the law is upheld. This "full service approach" to public policy helps make

Collapse -

Actually that was not how it was portrayed

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to The Competitive Enterpris ...

In New Scientist but as I've said I never took it all that seriously anyway. What is interesting with what you've dug up is that they are on the other side of the coin from what I imaged and I think it is the correct way to approach any potential problem like "Global Warming" if it even exists.

All to often we see the multi nationals just take what they want and forget about what they destroy in the process the "CEI" actions seem more in keeping with good land care practices and common sense than anything else. They sound like a very interesting place to visit.

Thanks Max for the URL I'll add it to my favorites and have a regular check up on their actions.


Collapse -

Max, you

by voldar In reply to On vested interest groups

are not fair. See also the other face of the coin, please. Follow all the "traces" of the money.

Collapse -

Okay - let's

by maxwell edison In reply to Max, you

Go ahead, make your point.

Follow the money on the other side of the coin, and what do you find?

Quite frankly, if you're suggesting that those scientists who question man-made global warming are in the pockets of the auto industry and such, I'm all ears to hear your proof. Go ahead and look for it. But I don't think you'll find it.

Collapse -


by voldar In reply to Okay - let's

I am not sugesting that, cars! But let me be the advocat of ****. Imagine that another type of engine (water engine) is developped.
Lets imagine how world economic would look like if oil goes off of the picture, if the actual poor countries (that pays a lot for oil) change their status because of their reachness in water. Wouldn't that be a haos born? Or at least some major changes I am sure would take place.
And I stop here.

Collapse -

It would probably be the same company's.

by Oz_Media In reply to Max,

I can see what you are saying Vlad, but I don't think the petroleum companies would go anywhere, they would just capitalize on the opportunity available to other countries, if they weren't allowed to use it, they would create a reason for America to take it anyway.

Collapse -

Oz Media

by voldar In reply to It would probably be the ...

yes and no. I never thought about countries, America is a great country, and I love it! There is not a "country matter", and yes, I agree with you - what is strong will be always stronger and what is poor will be always poorer, but ****, that's life. And I love life as it is! It gives you oportunities, or you made your own oportunities .

Back to Desktop Forum
131 total posts (Page 3 of 14)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums