Global Warming is media fueled myth

[receivingendofsirens]

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.

For example, in December, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.

At this meeting, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, stated, “I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

Deming also said that he received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in climate change that read, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D. we had the Medieval Warm Period where the world was as warm or warmer than it is today. But it is an obstacle to those maintaining that the current warming is abnormal.

People who want to hear the other side can go to www.oism.org/pproject for a scientific debunking of global warming. Also, listed are the names of more than 17,000 scientists, meteorologists and other technical people who have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence to support global warming.

source

http://www.couleenews.com/articles/2007/01...ion/04gwlte.txt

Also there is a link in the article about how this is true as well... with 17,100 signatures from many scientist meteorologist etc.

[Reincarnated]

Sorry, but you are too late. There is no more debate if human activity affects climate change. It is true.

P.S. - Your source doesn't work.

[SilverCougar]

No one's saying that it's human caused. It's humans causeing the climate change to happen more quickly and more destructivly. Which has strong evidence pointing towards the "true" side of this equation.

[receivingendofsirens]

if there is no more debate then why was this article written? and the petition still going against it?

i understand that humans do not help the warming but we in no way have caused it

plus warming is a natural cycle of the earth

thanks for the posts guys

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

17,100 people out of billions isn't much if you think about it

[capeo]

if there is no more debate then why was this article written? and the petition still going against it?

i understand that humans do not help the warming but we in no way have caused it

plus warming is a natural cycle of the earth

thanks for the posts guys

The article was written becasue OISM supports the administration, big oil, nuclear power, survivalism and host of other ultra-rightwing wackiness. They advocate homeschooling and building nuclear fallout shelters in your backyard. There not considered a real scientfic institution and they have nobody publishing peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming. Instead they take bits of info from real papers then misrepresent them to appear to support their theory. They also have the gonads to say that people who want to cut back on the use of fossil fuels actually just want to kill off poor people in developing countries. It's disgusting. They have nothing to do with science, they're a front for ultra-conservative lobbies. They should note that it's liberal organizations that are actually doing the brunt of the charity work in developing countries and who are on the ground helping people while they're hiding in their bunkers.

Just to note, anyone can sign that petition (including you or I) without knowing anything about the field so it means nothing. As for the actual science, I already posted it in the other Global Warming thread going right now. From here on out let's get our evidence from actual peer-reviewed sources. I wouldn't post scientific evidence from MoveOn.org.

[Jopaan]

Sorry, but you are too late. There is no more debate if human activity affects climate change. It is true.

Oh please, you guys are so sure of yourselves.

Here's some statistics for you. Volcanoes, hot springs, the ocean itself and other natural objects contribute about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere anually.

We humans contribute about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide ourselves. And all of this CO2 is being absorbed by plants, natural chemical processes, plankton, coral, and other natural phenomena. Also, we started putting out less harmful emissions about 30 years ago. Besides, science contradicts itself by saying that we are just recently exiting an ice age. It's good that we should use "greener" technology, but we're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

[capeo]

Oh please, you guys are so sure of yourselves.

Here's some statistics for you. Volcanoes, hot springs, the ocean itself and other natural objects contribute about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere anually.

We humans contribute about 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide ourselves. And all of this CO2 is being absorbed by plants, natural chemical processes, plankton, coral, and other natural phenomena. Also, we started putting out less harmful emissions about 30 years ago. Besides, science contradicts itself by saying that we are just recently exiting an ice age. It's good that we should use "greener" technology, but we're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

I don't know where you get your numbers from but you're way off. From the USGS:

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

By the way, the ocean absorbs CO2, it doesn't emit it. A net effect of about 10 billion tons. Here's some info on carbon sinks. The main problem being that it would take about a thousand years for the ocean to absorb just the extra carbon we've put into the air. Hence the problem.

http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-55/iss-8/p30.html

Edited February 1, 2007 by capeo

[Jopaan]

up, sorry. I must have been reading that book upside down.

[KGS3333]

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.

Mainstream, corporate-controlled media has until recently not been all that interested in championing the cause of environmentalism, and I can remember the days when the media covered the issue of climate change with a great deal of skepticism. The scientific evidence, as always, can be debated ad infinitum with both camps being able to substantiate their arguments with sound "scientific" data. But the empirical evidence is becoming quite undeniable; something is happening, and quite rapidly.

KGS

[Mattshark]

It is amazing that so many people believe global warming is real and is caused by humans. This myth has been largely promoted by the major media that gives much attention to those who support it and very little to those who debunk it.

For example, in December, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma chaired a “Climate Change and the Media” meeting. He said that global warming is a hoax. The meeting received almost no major media attention.

At this meeting, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma, stated, “I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.”

Deming also said that he received an astonishing e-mail from a major researcher in climate change that read, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” From about 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D. we had the Medieval Warm Period where the world was as warm or warmer than it is today. But it is an obstacle to those maintaining that the current warming is abnormal.

People who want to hear the other side can go to www.oism.org/pproject for a scientific debunking of global warming. Also, listed are the names of more than 17,000 scientists, meteorologists and other technical people who have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence to support global warming.

source

http://www.couleenews.com/articles/2007/01...ion/04gwlte.txt

Also there is a link in the article about how this is true as well... with 17,100 signatures from many scientist meteorologist etc.

So you chose to ignore all the scientific papers on the subject and the universities showing a great deal of evidence showing that there labs are recording record high temperatures and opt for websites with political agenda.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Mattshark

[IamsSon]

Sorry, but you are too late. There is no more debate if human activity affects climate change. It is true.

P.S. - Your source doesn't work.

Seems to me the debate is alive and well, I'm sure you wish it wasn't because the evidence for human-created global warming is so weak, but here we are debating it.

I would love to have anyone explain how the planet has gone through various cycles of ice and warming way before man could be any kind of influence.

[Mattshark]

Seems to me the debate is alive and well, I'm sure you wish it wasn't because the evidence for human-created global warming is so weak, but here we are debating it.

I would love to have anyone explain how the planet has gone through various cycles of ice and warming way before man could be any kind of influence.

But with the exception of a couple of massive mass extinction events related to meteor or super volcanic erruption, climate change has not happened so rapidly, the effect is not just the release of greenhouse gas (something which we do to an extreme extent) but the loss of carbon sinks which also effect the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and the removal of woodland has been very great in recent years.

[Robert M. Blevins]

Global warming is real enough. Why take the word of thousands of scientists, though? Just look around your own area and try to tell yourself the weather hasn't changed dramatically since 1998 or before.

There are many books out there on the subject.

Now for something different...

For the last four months, Adventure Books of Seattle has been creating a book built from two things:

1) Webform submissions from people around the globe, ordinary folks mostly, who give their opinions, the changes where they live, possible solutions.

2) Before and after images showing the effects of global warming.

The book is titled 'A Thousand Voices - A Testament on Global Warming.' and is edited by yours truly and Geoff Nelder of Great Britain. Mr. Nelder is a teacher and a Post-Graduate Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society. It's easy to participate, and all submissions except off-topic or spam will be published. Check the Adventure Books Video on why we decided to do the book, or go to the Global Warming Book page at AB and read full details. If you have some thoughts, or an opinion, you may as well have your voice heard...

[Reincarnated]

Seems to me the debate is alive and well, I'm sure you wish it wasn't because the evidence for human-created global warming is so weak, but here we are debating it.

Just because a small majority of nay-sayers say otherwise, does not change the facts. People denied the holocust and still do to this day. That doesn't mean that debate is alive and well.

I would love to have anyone explain how the planet has gone through various cycles of ice and warming way before man could be any kind of influence.

All the information and facts you seek have been repeated many times, try using the search function. Your choice to ignore & deny is hindering your ability to comprehend the situation at hand.

[KGS3333]

Seems to me the debate is alive and well, I'm sure you wish it wasn't because the evidence for human-created global warming is so weak, but here we are debating it.

I would love to have anyone explain how the planet has gone through various cycles of ice and warming way before man could be any kind of influence.

Granted there have been some recorded changes in climate, but these appear to have been rather gradual, while what's going on now has happened withing the span of about 30-40 years. Just by coincidence, there has been an exponential increase in the use of "fossil" fuels and the emission of other pollutants into the air. Not to mention a significant depletion in the size of the Earth's forests, a process begun early on in the 19th-century.

KGS

[Mattshark]

Granted there have been some recorded changes in climate, but these appear to have been rather gradual, while what's going on now has happened withing the span of about 30-40 years. Just by coincidence, there has been an exponential increase in the use of "fossil" fuels and the emission of other pollutants into the air. Not to mention a significant depletion in the size of the Earth's forests, a process begun early on in the 19th-century.

KGS

lol

The changes have not been gradual. They have been incredably fast.

[KGS3333]

lol

The changes have not been gradual. They have been incredably fast.

Um, are you having difficulties with reading comprehension again?

KGS

[Robert M. Blevins]

December 24, 1998...

Christmas Eve that year was the first time I suspected there was a global warming problem.

I'm from Washington State, USA. I looked up at the sky and saw a flight of over sixty geese heading north to Canada. It was FAR too early, but flew to Canada they did. The weather began changing exponentially the following year.

The next year, it started breaking heat records. Winters here have changed dramatically. One minute its windstorms and a million people out of power, (December, 2006) and the next it's heavy rain. Seattle received 75% of its annual rainfall for 2005...in November, 2006.

The cherry blossoms pop weeks too early now. There are dozens of other things I could tell you, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something's wrong.

KGS3333 hit the nail on the head with his simple explanation.

[Kismit]

Warming data allegedly manipulated

Source:ChicagoTribune

Scientists allege White House pressure

A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 incidents.

Source: Reuters

[DemonWatcher]

the opening entry for this thread mentioned the medieval warm period, a time when Britain made wines, was caused by several large volcanic eruptions, which as we all know pour more gas and material in to the air than we can in one year.

However, that said, since the beginning of the industrial age we as a species have poured enough gas into the air to in effect act like one or more volcanic eruptions.

[SilverCougar]

December 24, 1998...

Christmas Eve that year was the first time I suspected there was a global warming problem.

I'm from Washington State, USA. I looked up at the sky and saw a flight of over sixty geese heading north to Canada. It was FAR too early, but flew to Canada they did. The weather began changing exponentially the following year.

The next year, it started breaking heat records. Winters here have changed dramatically. One minute its windstorms and a million people out of power, (December, 2006) and the next it's heavy rain. Seattle received 75% of its annual rainfall for 2005...in November, 2006.

The cherry blossoms pop weeks too early now. There are dozens of other things I could tell you, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something's wrong.

KGS3333 hit the nail on the head with his simple explanation.

The summer was rather mild. It only reached 90 on maybe two occations. (talking about 2005 and 6)

The flooding was *insane* as was the windstorm and snow. However, I've yet to see a single cherry tree in bloom before March. But I did see the geese come back up.. which was startling... I agree.. way way to early for them.

Now don't get me wrong... there is something deffinatly happening, and human incroachment is *not* helping. However to say we had record heat temps here... I'd have to say.. no. Not last year. Not the year before. I do remember that we did have one day hit the tripple digits.. but that was atleast four years ago. And I'm a temprature whore. I keep and inside/outside thermomiter near my desk so I can keep track of how cold/hot it is outside since I have plants that need to come in or can be placed out at differnt times.

Edited February 1, 2007 by SilverCougar

[carini]

The reality is that you are wrong. We will in fact see sea levels rise relatively quickly over the next hundred years. The media actually introduces more of a lopsided view of whether or not humans are causing the problems. The scientists doing the research basically unanimously agree that the earth is heating up and that humans are the cause, the media downplays their research and calls into question whether this is true. This is mainly because multibillion dollar companies and the government run the media and dont want to cause any massive changes to the economy of the world and ruin the wealth of the few.

Insurance companies are already changing their policies based on the research because they dont want to insure poorly planned beach side properties only to have them vanish with more and larger natural disasters.

The UN's report already states that they are 90% sure the heating is caused by humans. Most research says its 100%, but even the UN calls into question some of their results.

We are going to at least double the co2 in the atmosphere and possibly quadruple it in less then 100 years time. Its already at about 400ppm up from 280 about 150 years ago. This is faster then at any time in the past 65 million years.

[BlueZone]

People who want to hear the other side can go to www.oism.org/pproject for a scientific debunking of global warming. Also, listed are the names of more than 17,000 scientists, meteorologists and other technical people who have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing scientific evidence to support global warming.

source

http://www.couleenews.com/articles/2007/01...ion/04gwlte.txt

Also there is a link in the article about how this is true as well... with 17,100 signatures from many scientist meteorologist etc.

LOL- check the sources

I checked these links and notice that the project you're referring to was headed by Frederick Seitz-- the same guy who headed the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company research group in the 70's which discovered that smoking wasn't linked to cancer. Now there's a scientist we can count on! For a brief description of Mr. Seitz' research on tobacco, see http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html,

By the way, try Googling some of those 17,000 names along with the word "science"-- you won't find any scientific research, peer reviews, or intellectual publications. The vast majority of these "top scientists" don't even have PhD's. Most of those who do have PhD's specialize in politically oriented fields rather than science.

[Mattshark]

Um, are you having difficulties with reading comprehension again?

KGS

No, you having trouble with whether it is man made or not?