Global Warming Causes

Dear Tim,

My husband joins the rank of scientists, as he graduated from Georgetown University with Phd in Physiology, and worked at the secure Naval labs there in Bethesda, and then went on to medical school. (He says many times that he just got too squirrely being away from people back in the labs, and that is why he loved medicine: he was around people).

Anyway, back to the point. My husband laughs every time someone refers to the green preachings of Al Gore. The way he explains it is that carbon and levels happens on a natural cycle that cannot be controlled by anything. The recent research shows that this happens and is not changed,(Warming, I'm talking about), by climate factors. As a matter of fact we are at a couple of degrees cooler now, in this cycle and not warmer.

I also find that Al owning a carbon trading investment corporation in London, with his corporation benefitting from the wealthy, and other countries' investments in carbon trading, and Al's involvement, along with Maurice Strong, his very long friend, in the Chicago Carbon Exchange,(the only carbon trading corporation in the U.S.), to be extremely perplexing. Al is still listed as getting funds from his share holdings from the oil industry at the same time.

Years ago, Al and Maurice Strong started working on the green theories, when Maurice worked for the Canadian government, and did a lot of work for the environmental theories in the U.N. that went into the global warming effect now being preached, that has now been proven to be bogus, and the research was cooked. Maurice is currently residing in China, a country deeply involved, and making tons of money on carbon trading.Maurice has an extradition warrant for him being brought to the U.S. for some theft issues with the Canadian and American government, and China protects him. Yet, Maurice is still listed the last time I checked as being a board member of the Chicago Carbon Exchange Corporation.

Legitimate scientists for the most half, do not take someone with a bachelor's degree in religion, seriously. Legitimate scientists look at the science research background of the theorists. Therefore, I restate my husband starts laughing at the audacity of it all, when folks quote Al Gore as an expert on global warming.

From my point of view, it looks like an attempt to set up a monopoly on the carbon trading business to make money. From that, Al has made tons of money as a Business man. That is what he is: a Business Man.

You can google or bing Al Gore's name and find out all the research on this you want.

I don’t know the true answer on Global Warming/Climate change. I think that the only people that will truly know who is correct on this issue are our children and grand children. But I do want to weigh in on the topic of pollution in general and who should be responsible for cleaning it up.

As you are aware in the mid and late 1900’s a number of company and our Armed Forces created a series of very polluted sites. These are called superfund sites. Major cities had very bad pollution and the northeast had acid rain. There are probably many other examples. We have made good progress on cleaning these things up but it has been at huge taxpayer expense with a lot of government involvement.

It is my contention that there is no free market mechanism that rewards doing things in an environmentally friendly manner. The current “Green” trends are really the result of some sort of government involvement. I see no other way but to have government involvement in the form of some sort of regulation or rules.

Tim & Connie are absolutely right - Global Warming is the biggest hoax in human history. John - Market forces are the greatest force for creating a cleaner & healthier environment. For a some real science, check out the book Hard Green, Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists by Peter Huber, www.JunkScience.com & www.PetitionProject.org (>31,000 Real Scientists have signed the Petition stating that they disagree with the GW Histeria). There are many more references.

BobS,

Thanks for the websites. Again, we will know the true answer to climate change in the fullness of time. I hope for our children and our randchildren's sake you and other are correct.

You mention that >.

Can you give me some examples of this. I sure do not see any.

Question above should have been

You mention that
>

Can you give me some examples of this. I sure do not see any

BobS
I am having trouble here. Let me try a 3rd time as I am interested in you input.

You mention that market forces are the greatest force for creating a cleaner & healther environment.

Can you give me some examples?

National Geographic has slid several notches, in my opinion. I can remember when the magazine was so high class that the only advertisers were companies like Ford, RCA and the like. As for their cable channel, we get shows like "Locked Up Abroad," "Dog Whisperer" and "Breakout." Sheesh.

This is such a silly argument. There is no doubt that many more scientists believe humans are accelerating climate change than those who refute it. I don't know who is right. What I do know is that it's 50/50, either we are or we are not accelerating climate change.

What is 100% accurate is that carbon based fuel sources are finite. Maybe we get lucky and exhaust our fossil fuels before climate changes drives calamity. Maybe we exhaust our fossil fuels and there is no climate calamity. The bottom line is that we will be forced to switch from fossil fuels at some point.

Until then we will send a billion dollars a day to the middle east. Renewable energy sources keep that cash in the U.S. and out of terrorists coffers.

Until then we will continue to suffer from oil spills, the effects of fracking for natural gas, the scarring of our landscape to mine coal and enjoy breathing all of the polluted air.

Until then many people, (Tim are you listening?) will disregard their own correct beliefs, actions and advice to preserve their political ideology.

For example, Tim suggests priming with the special gray primer to ensure that the red paint is covered in one coat. It's great advice. . Why don't you apply the same logic to climate change? It seems to me that the effects of climate change are much more detrimental than painting 2 or 3 coats to cover. But it will only be his kids and Grandchildren's generation that would be hurt so we'll let them see if the science is true. I guess you don't believe in Life Insurance either.

Conservative minds labeled and belittled those who believed the world was round as heretics. What an ironic example to use in your letter. History again repeats itself.

While many of you spit in disgust at the thought of climate change I'm going to continue using and generating renewable energy as insurance against possibly dooming my children and grandchildren and laughing all the way to the bank as I do it. Good luck to all of you!

To be fair, although Al Gore may have popularized the climate change concept, he by no means invented the study of human-induced climate change. There are thousands of esteemed independent scientists worldwide whom have conducted independent studies that have reached similar general conclusions about the links between anthropogenic (man-made) carbon emissions and change in climate. Again Al Gore may be a big cheerleader, but he's not the only guy in the room looking at this issue. If you check out some books on climate science, you'll see that hypotheses linking fossil-fuel combustion and climate change date back to the late 1800's.

Also to be fair, to go out and boldly say such strong things as "climate change is a giant hoax" is just as extreme as saying "everything Al Gore says is 100% true". Issues around energy and climate are exceedingly complex, and there are likely no absolutes. The "truth" probably lies in the middle somewhere, i.e. between "nothing will ever happen" and "the sky is falling".

Tim, no one is disputing that over the earth's geologic history magnificent climate changes have happened. And of course, such major changes will continue to happen over time. The issue at hand is rate of change – that is, how rapidly did the earth’s climate change in the past, compared to what might happening now? If you examine global CO2 concentrations since 1000AD to present-day, you can see that CO2 volumes went from being relatively low and steady to quickly shooting nearly straight-up in the 20the century and off the chart. Next, if you examine fossil-fuel emissions since 1800, you can see that the emission volumes also went from being very low and flat to shooting straight-up in the 20the century. Even without any scientific analysis, common sense suggests a connection here.

Looking back at 1,000 years of CO2 data might not be enough? Well fortunately, due to modern methods of studying polar ice-cores we can get CO2 data going further back – way back. Even looking back to 800,000 years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels were nowhere near where they are now (post industrial revolution). Note that a simple web image search will bring up many academic and government charts with historic global CO2 and fossil-fuel emissions.

Ok fine, so let’s agree then that CO2 concentrations are up, and it looks like it’s because fossil-fuel combustion has increased in the past 100 years – so what? The climate change theory is that the sudden spike in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations (resulting from a corresponding spike in fossil-fuel combustion worldwide) is something that will cause a global warming effect that will ultimately trigger all sorts of unnaturally fast climate shifts throughout the world. There are many climate skeptics that deny the possibility of this cause & effect relationship, and think the idea of global climate change is a farce. Disputing science is a healthy thing; it challenges researchers to do a better job to prove their theories, which ultimately leads to even better science and the further advancement of human society.

It’s easy for any skeptic to say climate change won’t happen. However it’s harder for most skeptics to tell us *why it won’t happen*. Clearly, there’s a degree of uncertainty associated with predicting climate change. We know CO2 is up, and fossil fuel combustion is a cause of this. We know both fuel combustion and CO2 levels will continue to rise. What we don’t know is how the earth will react – we’re in unchartered waters. In the face of such uncertainty, taking precautions to ward off global disaster is pragmatic. If climate skeptics would like to forgo such precautions (i.e., measures to cut carbon emissions), then they ought to have a really good reason for us to do so. And they should be prepared to convince us with science that leads us to this conclusion, not just opinion.

Tim, I would caution you to not come out so strong about a polarizing issue as climate change (unlike me!). It's become like the topic of abortion - if someone comes out and says they're for it or against it, they paint themselves into a black or white box. Roughly 50% of the people will agree with you, and the other 50% will not. For them, their image of you will forever be tarnished and they may be less likely to follow your views going into the future. Maybe you should use the firepit as a place to throw issues out onto the table, but not come out so adamantly for or against such polarizing issues. You may wind up damaging your home improvement business by getting too political.

Al Gore isn't the least bit interested in global warming, climate change etc. He, like most politicians are only interested in money and lots of it. He has made zillions off of this hoax.