News-Letter

GLOBAL WARMING DO EXIST!!!!

When is this going to stop being a 'left-leaning', 'right-leaning' dialog of attacking the messenger and start being about science? I'm so tired of these pathetic attempts by so-called 'News' sites to further politicize a simple fact of life.

If most of the scientific community at large (and by most I mean overwhelmingly so) then why is such a high percentage of 'media' giving so much time to the lunatic fringe like this writer?


"Yes, the consensus is overwhelming that global warming exists, and is most likely caused by humans. But that misses the key question: Should we care?"

No, no, we shouldn't we should just let the rampant species extinction continue, we should let half the African continent starve to death as they run out of water...

How come these selfish non-scientists are getting so much press on a scientific subject? Has the press really decided to completely shirk any moral obligation to society in exchange for what? A few extra angry white-guy readers?

Pathetic.

MitGrad, I'm not sure how much research you have done on this new documentary, but I advise that you look into it. The director has a bad track record of misrepresenting the people who appear in his films.
Here is one example: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

Although there might be some truth in his film, there is enough evidence out there suggesting that this isn't a sound body of research. As a result, I don't think it is very wise to get 'facts' from it. To believe everything said in this documentary would be no different than believing everything presented in An Inconvenient Truth. It's just one source.

Yes, it is known that in the past CO2 levels have risen (or fallen) after a major climate change. This is caused by the oceans warming more slowly than the air and then releasing large amounts of CO2 much later. When the oceans cool, they absorb more. Although that is an accepted scientific theory, it is like of irrelevant to this current warming.

We know that currently (over the last 200 years), human activity has been responsible for pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the air. Yes, the numbers are relatively small compared to other natural carbon sources (the ocean being the largest), but it is a factor that has never existed in the past and should be considered! There HAS been a recorded rise in CO2 in the atmosphere over the past several decades. If I were to accept what you say about CO2 levels following a warming, then first, the recent increase of CO2 would have to be linked to something other than the burning of fossil fuels. So it would have to be coming from the same source it has in the past. Is it? Can you find that information from a peer reviewed source? I'm not doubting that it could be, but I have yet to see a sound source stating that information.
Also, if CO2 levels increase after a warming, then what recent warming is responsible for this current rise in CO2?
The truth is that there are new factors on the planet now (namely us) that can could be having an affect on climate change, as a result it might not make much sense to completely compare past climate changes to this one. It doesn't make scientific sense....or common sense for that matter. It would be completely ignoring a new variable. It would be bad science.

As for a scientific consensus, I understand what you are saying. Science is a field where new information is always discovered and old ideas are thrown out. There should never be an absolute statement made about something scientific. However, there are many things that are generally accepted by science, even if people are still doing tests and trying to prove it wrong. Here is a great example of this using a scientific theory that hasn't been completely clouded by politics and the media:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

On a whole scientists accept that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light, however that doesn't mean that it cannot be disproved either, nor will it stop people from trying to disprove it. But it is still accepted by the majority of the scientific community (a consensus?) that it cannot be done.
It is the same with climate change. The scientific community can agree on something and still be aware that things can eventually change as new information presents itself. Although it isn't very smart to assume that the science of climate change is 100% proven, it also isn't smart to assume that the scientific community cannot agree on something either.

And to make a quick comment on the opinion of Dustin Lushing. I think that Al Gore is an example of someone who uses absolute language. In his lectures he makes it appear that there is no room for debate. Although I think fundamentally what he says is true, he probably puts too much emotion into what is a scientific issue. I'm sure there are many aspects of global warming that have been blown out of proportion, but at the same time I also think it is responsible for some very urgent current and potential problems as well. I don't think it is one extreme of the other, I don't think we should all panic, but I also definitely don't think we shouldn't care at all either. We should be working towards a greener, more sustainable society regardless of global warming. And as for the 2008 ballot, I'll take you up on that wager.

Jinx: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is an opinions piece in the opinions section of a newspaper ...

Other than producing a general rant of a certain demographic, you 'kinda fail to prove your main argument -- especially through a lack of scientific support.

moocowmoo, so I take it your one of those Angry White guy readers?

Welcome to the minority of thinking on Global Warming. Maybe it's the first time you've ever been a minority?

My point is, if someone has an 'opinion' on the Earth being flat, do you think they'd get anywhere near the amount of press these selfish lunatics get? NO WAY.

Failed to make my main point? What you want to argue the semantics of climate change? Are you going to quote scifi writers and Exxon paid scientists? Give me a break, there is NO Argument left. Why would I bother trying to 'prove' my main point in a BB on the Internet? That's ridiculous. Why on earth would you bother? You can quote a huge range of people and reports, I can quote just as many, if not more. This is the Internet, EVERY opinion in the world has some compelling information to back it up.

I wish you would have made more scientific analysis in your political opinion. There is not a lot of value in the imaginary (albeit possible) hypothesis that Gore and his advisors sat around and decided to hype global warming so that he could be prez someday. Rather, it is more valuable to give some hard insight. We have made similar claims at http:www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com but we have always tried to put facts on the table not hyperbole.

Look at the Supreme Court opinion that came out yesterday. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that: 1) global climate change is real; 2) CO2 emissions resulting from fossil fuels are the primary culprit; and 3) the consequences of doing nothing will be catastropic.

Any remaining legitimate scientific debate is on certain particulars that aren't very relevant from a public policy standpoint, e.g., the ozone hole on top of Greenland, the rate of sea level rise, the increase in hurricane severity, etc.

The above essay highlight the main problem in this debate. Conservatives don't like Gore, Gore is identified with global climate change, therefore they don't like global climate change. But this does short shrift to a serious problem and ignores a mountain of scientific analysis.

If they're truly was a "consensus on global warming", why does HEAT feel the need to reaffirm it. The fact that HEAT needs to spend time saying "most experts agree" is sufficient evidence that some do not.

How much would it cost for Hopkins to achieve carbon neutrality? Why won't HEAT tell us this? How much would it cost to carry out a study to determine how much it would cost for JHU to be carbon neutral. Why won't HEAT tell us?

Even if the so called "consensus" on global warming exists, why should Hopkins act now. Even HEAT doesn't argue that a carbon neutral JHU would have any appreciable effect on global warming.

Of course, HEAT will come in and claim that carbon neutrality will save the university money. This is an invalid argument. The university already realizes maximum cost savings from energy conservation. Any additional spending and conservation will not achieve enough energy savings to make it tax efficient.

Further, HEAT proposes that the university purchase carbon offsets. Basically, HEAT is saying that the university should spend millions of dollars on symbolic speech. The, at best, dubious effectiveness of carbon offsets offers no direct benefit to JHU. How many more students could receive financial aid ? How many more dorms could be constructed? How much could the food be improved? Is worth spending so much money on symbolic gesture.

HEAT should focus it's attention on the national debate. Maybe then they could do actually have some effect on global warming. However, there current plan vesicles amounts to demanding the university shortchange it students to make a useless pragmatic gesture.

this article absolutely sucked. it was totally biased and a waste of my time. next time try being a little more factual.