the polar bear climate change photo

Started Mar 24, 2007 | Discussions thread
dipics Veteran Member • Posts: 4,317
Re: Short Course on Global Warming

Gary Eickmeier wrote:


Most of us believe that global warming is a serious threat to the
planet, that it is caused by anthropogenic (human) activity, but
the administration is ignoring it because it is too expensive to
fix. You read arguments from both sides on the science of the
issue, but how do you know which scientists to believe? Well, all
you can do is gather together a few simple facts on the greenhouse
effect and decide on a more informed basis. So let’s begin.

First, the warming from the sun would re-radiate back into space if
it weren’t for an atmosphere that is held close to the surface of
the planet by the force of gravity. This atmosphere acts as a
greenhouse in keeping the heat in until a point of equilibrium is
reached. This is a good thing, because without this effect we would
be a giant iceball.

The gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect are water vapor,
CO2, Methane, N2O, and miscellaneous gases such as CFCs. These
gases are not equal in their global warming potential, or
contribution to the effect. It all shakes out to CO2 being 72% of
the contribution from gases other than water vapor. However, most
of the carbon dioxide is natural, and the man-made part from
driving our SUVs around is about 2.33% of the contribution from all
gases excluding water vapor.

But water vapor is the 800 pound gorilla that is usually ignored in
the hysterical reports from the councils that everyone is reading
about. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, which then
makes the anthropogenic contribution from all of our factories,
vehicles, and breathing closer to 0.117% of the total contribution

  • that is zero point one-one-seven percent, just in case you

thought that was a typo.

So how did all the hysteria start, and why are they doing it? The
simplest explanation is that there are environmental organizations
that depend for their funding on “sky is falling” scenarios that
they can save the world from. The scientists are pulled into it
because their funding is controlled by politicians, who will pull
their funding or grants unless they are coming up with the “right”
answers so the politicians can save the world. This leads to a
groupthink effect in which dissenters are discredited, misquoted,
or fired.

Now - you can quote any source you want, or believe any argument to
the contrary, but those numbers above will not change. The Kyoto
Protocol calls for mandatory CO2 reductions (of 30%), which, in Dr.
Fred Singer’s opinion, would have an undetectable effect on global
warming, but have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. I do
not mean to argue against those things that we should be doing
anyway, such as decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and
building more mass transit systems. But those good things have
nothing to do with global warming and should be approached in ways
that will help, not destroy, the economy.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist University of Virginia,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Wallace Broecker, Columbia University
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Dr Singer has been for sale for quite some time now. Singer is also "skeptical" about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer and between second hand smoke and lung cancer.

Pretty much any actual science that makes someone look bad, Dr. Singer is there to call it "junk" science, for a price.


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow