Hello, vido-ga
I have followed the debates about global warming for several years.
There is no doubt that arguments are strong on both sides. However, it
is my opinion that it is always important to remain neutral until
evidence is truly in place.
I assume, from your question, that you are looking for a compilation
of arguments that would support the fact that global warming is merely
“fiction’ at this point, until ample evidence points otherwise.
Therefore, I have compiled an essay, of sorts, to present the
“fictional” side of the argument.
Should you need further information regarding a particular
perspective of the theories pertaining to global warning, please don’t
hesitate to ask for clarification. Otherwise, I will pass this
information on to you!
umiat-ga
*******************************************************************************
The Ice caps are melting! Island paradises will soon disappear under
rising ocean waters as entire populations are forced to abandon their
homes! Species will become extinct as ecosystems are destroyed by
rising temperatures. And who will be responsible? Mankind, some say.
And why? Because we must be held responsible for our deliberate
propensity to ignore the earth’s fragility due to our self-importance
and environmental stupidity. But is the earth really destined to be
reduced to no more than a “fried egg,” as Time magazine depicted on
its April 9th, 2001 cover? Is the human race really to blame? Is the
earth destined to shrivel under the heat of rising temperatures? If
fiction is ever disguised as fact, then “global warming” is certainly
the latest fallacy disguised as accepted truth!
There is a certainly a degree of acceptance among scientists that
the earth’s surface temperature is rising; a concept referred to as
“Global Warming.” But the actual reasons behind the planet’s
temperature increase has created quite a rift in the scientific
community. Has the earth’s surface warmed due to man’s excessive
burning of fossil fuels and the subsequent release of unprecedented
amounts of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere, or is this temporary warming part of a natural climactic
variation that has occurred throughout the earth’s history?
The notion of global warming is nothing short of “horse pucky,”
according to Alan Caruba, founder of The National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns.
Caruba spewed forth this colorful rhetoric in response to the
Environmental Protection Agency’s report submitted to the United
Nations, titled “Climate Action Report 2002,” which blames human
activity as the cause for global warming. It is certainly a position
that the Bush administration does not support. In fact, the
administration has continually backed off from signing the United
Nations Kyoto Treaty on Climate Control. In response to the EPA’s
submission of the latest Climate Action Report, “the White House
hastily announced that President Bush considered the report to be the
product of governmental "bureaucracy", was skeptical of the report's
conclusions, and, said Reuters, "is still opposed to an international
accord to reduce heat-trapping emissions." (1)
Global warming is merely another scare tactic embraced by
environmentalists to further their own political agenda. And they want
all citizens that deny, or even doubt, the validity of the theory of
global warming to feel guilty! The failure of the Bush administration
to sign the Kyoto Treaty is touted as another indication that our
President is out to destroy the environment and, if you agree with
him, you are one of the destroyers. However, according to Dr. Sallie
Baliunas, one of the leading climatologists in the nation, the Kyoto
Treaty, "at best would produce a 0.011 of a percentage point reduction
in greenhouse gases and a negligible reduction in global temperature"
according to the treaty's models that forecast the rising
temperatures.”(1)
Such reasoning will not stop organizations like the Friends of the
Earth from personally blaming the United States, and President George
Bush in particular, from being personally responsible for global
warming. An e-mail campaign aimed at garnering support for their cause
claims that “sabotaging the Kyoto Protocol puts the USA into a
position of environmental isolationism and makes it responsible for
climate catastrophe.'' (2)
“While precious little data is in hand, some environmental groups,
now having more-or-less successfully achieved goals for cleaner air
and water standards in the western world's developed nations, have
turned their sights on protecting not just species and specific
forests, but on entire ecosystems. The largest ecosystem is our planet
itself.” (3)
There is no scientific validation for the theory of global warming.
It is important to consider that 17,000 scientists backed the Bush
administration in its decision to abstain from signing the Kyoto
Treaty. In their petition against signing the treaty, the scientist
stated that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic
heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's
climate.” These same scientists contend that the global warming
advocates rely on computer models rather than physical evidence to
support their theories. “Models cannot accurately represent a reality
that we do not understand, stated Calvin Donaghey of GeoSurveys:
“there are too many degrees of freedom in the system.'' Thus, “a
serious reality check is in order.” Retired MIT physicist Charles
Mack, Jr., calls man-made global warming a “`myth proclaimed in
defiance of uniformly contrary data.'' (2)
The global warming trend is more likely due to increased volcanic
activity than to greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of gasses
produced from volcanic eruptions far surpass the damaging emissions
produced by man. The increase in volcanic eruptions in the 150 years
prior to 1912 are most likely responsible for the milder temperatures
we are experiencing today. In fact, according to scientists like
Physicist Russell Rickert and geologist David Johnson, another ice age
is far more likely to occur, and it would be far damaging to the
environment than the proposed global warming that environmentalists
consider so alarming. According to David Johnson, “the warming trend
we have been experiencing since the Little Ice Age has actually slowed
during the past 50 years-the one period in history in which mankind
has produced significant “greenhouse gases.” (2)
Even though the earth’s surface temperatures have been rising, the
atmospheric temperatures have actually been cooling in some areas. The
relationship between the earth’s surface temperatures compared to
atmospheric temperatures has given no credence to the theory of global
warming. “According to computerised climate models, the warming should
spread right through the troposphere, the bottom ten kilometres or so
of the atmosphere. Sceptics argue that if the models are wrong about
how surface warming influences temperatures in the troposphere, they
are also likely to be wrong about the movement of water vapour between
the surface and the upper troposphere. That in turn may mean they are
wrong about water-vapour feedback - one of the vital mechanisms behind
global warming.” (4)
Periods of global warming are evidenced in history, and are not
peculiar to today. Scientific evidence points to occurences in the
past when the warming of the earth’s surface was similar to today. A
March 2002 article by Science magazine states that “a tree ring
analysis found striking similarities between 20th century increases in
global temperature and the Medieval Warm Period -- a period lasting
from 1330 AD to 1600 AD which saw similar increases in temperature.”
(5)
Although few scientists would refute the fact that the earth’s
surface is in a warming trend, the question remains : Is global
warming a product of man’s ignorance and destructiveness, or is it all
part of a natural cycle? It is important to realize that we have only
had the ability to measure the earth's surface and atmospheric
temperature for a very short time. What occurred in times past is mere
speculation. Until mankind can be proven to be overwhelmingly
responsible for the “unnatural” increase in the earths’s temperature,
it is only prudent to remain cautious in making any judgements
concerning the thousands of years of climatic changes concerning our
planet.
(1) “Fire EPA’s Christie Whitman,” by Alan Caruba. The Sierra Times.
June 9,
2002.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/06/10/alcaruba.htm
(2) “Scientists Speak on Global Warming.” Civil Defense Perspectives.
May
2001, (Vol.17, #4)
http://www.oism.org/cdp/may2001.htm
(3) “Global Swarming….Is So-Called Global Warming Fact, Fiction or
Unknown,”
by Mark S. Ramsey. September 27, 1997
http://tendeer.com/globalwarming_firesofindonesia.htm
(4) “What is the Greenhouse Effect.” NewScientist.com.
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp
(5) “Climate Change During Medieval Warm Period Very Similar to 20th
Century
Rise in Temperature,” by Brian Carnell. March 24, 2002
http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html
Google Search Strategy
"global warming” fact fiction
Press accounts fictional global warming
global warming
is global warming real? |
