« Enforced Futility | Main | Lunatic Leftist Landrieu »


Michael Seward


Your whack at the "global warming myth" missed the ball.

2) There has never been conclusive evidence that global warming is NOT a normal cyclical trend between periods of global cooling, or that it is caused by CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gasses".

Wrong. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society (SCGS), and the National Academy of Sciences all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human caused global warming is compelling and mounting.

The National Academy of Sciences says: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise".

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the National Climate Data Center, the Scripps Institute, and every other scientific organization whose work bears on the question of climate are in agreement that global warming is a consequence of increasing levels of greenhouse gases acting on natural climate processes.

NASA’s GISS reports that “global temperature change of the past half-century is mainly a response to climate forcing agents, or imposed perturbations of the Earth's energy balance. This is especially true of human-made forcings, such as carbon dioxide and methane, which trap the Earth's heat radiation as a blanket traps body heat; thus they cause warming. …This research was a collaborative effort of 19 institutions, including 7 universities, federal agencies, private industry and other NASA centers”, not the work of radical environmentalists.

Only conservative pundits, oil and coal industry supported PR firms, and right wing think tanks believe that global warming is a normal cyclical trend between periods of global cooling.

3) There has been a recorded increase in solar output over the last 150 years, which could alone account for Global Warming.

Wrong. Scientists have been looking for a correlation between climate and solar activity for over a century. No connection has ever been found between solar activity and the recent warming attributed to greenhouse gases. There has been no effective change in solar energy since about 1950, and no evidence that past changes in solar output are driving any current warming. The warming over recent decades is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

The sun’s contribution to global warming is tiny compared to greenhouse gases: NASA has studied the contribution of solar changes to the energy balance of the climate, and found that “the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases.” The sun is approaching a low in its cyclical sunspot cycle, yet the warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1990.

The question of attributing the recent warming to a solar influence can be answered by looking at the fingerprint of that warming. For instance, the nighttime temperature minimums have increased at about twice the rate of daytime maximums. This is a clear indication of greenhouse gas warming. If the sun had been the main cause of global warming, this trend should have been reversed, i.e., daytime maximums increasing faster. From this fact alone, the sun can't be the cause of recent global warming.

Your reasoning ignores the physics involved in the relationship between greenhouse gases and solar energy. If the Sun is actually intensifying, that will increase the radiative effect of greenhouse gases, not cancel it. I challenge you to name one credible scientific organization (not right wing think tank or fossil fuel funded lobbying organization) that believes with you that global warming is caused by the sun, rather than greenhouse gases.

4) The eruption of Mt. St. Helens spewed more "greenhouse gasses" (and ozone depleting gasses) into the atmosphere in a single event than all anthropogenic causes thru recorded time. Yet MANKIND causes global warming?

Wrong. Volcanic eruptions COOL the climate by adding sulfates and particulates to the atmosphere. Unlike CO2, volcanic effects to the climate are short-lived. The contribution of Mt. St Helens to the radiative budget of the climate was miniscule compared to the radiative effects of greenhouse gases. The effect of greenhouse gases on the Earth's atmosphere has increased 20 percent since 1990, according to the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index by the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, CO. The effect of Mt St Helens is long gone from the atmosphere.

5) MARS is experiencing climbing global temperatures. Did the rovers cause it? Are they emitting CO2?

Are you serious? Martian climate has nothing to do with Earth climate. The Martian climate is warming because of massive dust storms that are heating the atmosphere. The sun has not increased intensity since at least 1950.

Conclusion: Man doesn't cause global warming. It is a natural process.

Wrong again. All scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are responsible for levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that have not been seen on earth in at least 400,000 years. The effect of this imbalance in atmospheric chemistry can be seen today in retreating tropical glaciers, melting polar sea ice, rising sea levels, and changes in the habits of animals and plants. Global warming has serious implications for future generation of humans on earth.

A solid scientific understanding confirms that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide accumulate in the atmosphere as a result human activities. They trap solar heat from the sun resulting in a gradual warming of the Earth's atmosphere. This is physics, not politics.





My scientists vs yours...

I believe mine.

Michael Seward


It’s not “my scientists against your scientists.” It’s respected and accomplished climate scientists against a politically motivated campaign to mislead the public by misrepresenting and distorting the science. Facts based on observations are consistent with the theory of global warming. Global warming denial is a political effort, not a scientific theory.

The organizations you have linked me to, Fred Singer and the OISM, are not scientific organizations. Both of these groups, and many others, are engaged in an effort to distort and misrepresent the science for political objectives.

Check out this assertion in the first link:” The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.” If facts have any relevance to the debate, than this statement alone discredits this propaganda. Not even climate skeptics believe this anymore.

The OISM is a tiny fringe think tank called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Their “Oregon Petition” a hoax and a fraud. ARTHUR B. ROBINSON is the sole proprietor of the OISM. He is not even a climate scientist. The paper presented here has never been subject to peer review, and is riddled with easily disputed errors. It is a political manifesto, not science.
OISM describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, and the molecular biology of aging." The only paid staff person at the OISM is biochemist Arthur Robinson, the Institute's founder and president. None of its other "faculty members" actually work at the Institute. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer to make the paper look like a paper published in the prestigious PNAS. I consider that a fraud and a hoax.
Fred Singer is a scientist. However, Singer’s SEPP is not a scientific organization. It is an anti-environmental right wing “think tank” with a political agenda to deny legitimate science in the service of a conservative political constituency.

A distinguishing feature of global warming skeptics is the minimal support their opinions receive in the scientific literature, where their work must stand up to the scrutiny of scientific debate. In 1998 Fred Singer reassured the House Small Business Committee that “The climate is not warming…” On his website, Singer claims that “…since 1940, weather satellites, tree ring data, and corrected thermometer readings all agree that climate has not warmed–even though CO2 levels rose.” http://www.sepp.org/faq.html

In April 2005, Fred Singer accepted his “Flat Earth Society” award with this comment:

“What matters are facts based on actual observations. And as long as weather satellites show that the atmosphere is not warming, I cannot put much faith into theoretical computer models that claim to represent the atmosphere but contradict what the atmosphere tells us.”

Singer is simply wrong.

A report by scientists at Yale University and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) finds that the effect of the sun's heat on weather balloons largely accounts for a data discrepancy that global warming deniers have long hung their hat on… http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/yu-eit080805.php

Three papers published in Science Express “strongly suggests that there is no longer any fundamental discrepancy between modeled and observed temperature trends in the tropical atmosphere” according to Benjamin Santer, lead author of the paper and a scientist in LLNL's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison.

Now, why would Singer put his faith in weather satellites, when the satellite data have long been known to be subject to potential errors in data analysis? Because that’s his job, as a vocal global warming denier, media spokesperson and the founder of an anti-global warming think tank.

Singer’s penchant for categorical denials of any evidence of global warming is at odds with observed facts. Singer’s comments illustrate the bankruptcy of credibility that the skeptics have created for themselves by promoting uncertainties in the science as arguments in their favor.
The OISM, SEPP, The Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute, etc. can put out all the policy papers they want, but until they contribute to the scientific literature, rather than the op-eds of the nations papers and magazines, they are engaging in opinion management and public relations, not scientific research.
The National Center link is equally bogus. They say “forecasts have not been matched by actual temperature readings from satellites, weather balloons or even surface temperature gages.” (Notice the misspellings, and the denial of well-established facts) The National Center is a fossil fuel industry funded PR outfit designed to deceive and mislead the public.

These links are part of the right-wing war against science. Nearly every piece of scientific research that has been published since these sources you link to were created in 1998 have supported the predictions made by climate scientists. The evidence supporting the theory of global warming is clear and compelling.

Perhaps you are inclined to believe the denial of global warming because you are committed to the faith of your political convictions. I suggest that facts still matter, and the facts support the science.

You've articulately stated your opinion. There are scientific claims from reputable scientists on both sides of this debate. And from disreputable sources on both sides as well.

I remain unconvinced, however, that global warming is noncyclical, anthropogenic or a real threat. I am indeed a conservative, but this is not the genesis of my opinion on this matter. I consider the global warming hype to be hysterical junk science. There is a lot of that out there, and Global Warming is not the only topic that junk science addresses. It is not my intent to carry on a continuing debate here. This blog is simply a journal of MY opinion. The reader may read and decide for himself.

Joel M.

I remember thinking a few years ago that the issue of Global Warming was an unsettled one from the point of view of scientists. Then, over the course of a couple years, I read about the subject, keeping an eye on where the information was coming from and what, if any slant, the information could have. The conclusion I've come up with is that, while there are certainly a few groups out there trying to debunk the idea of Global Warming and that the effect is caused by humanity, essentially there is no debate at all in the scientific community that studies the climate on a regular basis.

This artifical debate is somewhat like the so-called debate over evolution, in that there isn't one. Ten out of ten scientists will tell you that, not only is evolution real but the diversity of life on Earth is a result of this process. Evolution is not the issue, but a similar mock debate has been fabricated around Glocal Warming.

Rather than get into details or reports, I only ask you to consider a few things. First you have to understand that the scientific community has accepted that humanity has caused Glocal Warming. Second, you have to compare the motivation of the scientists who support Global Warming research and those who have been paid to find a pre-determined conclusion by big industries (with a few exceptions, these are the guys who deny the existence of Global Warming. Some now admit that the problem is real but that there is nothing we can do. This translates to, "there's nothing we're willing to do.")

Scientists can be alarmists, and they can just plain get it wrong, and they can pursue an area of study simply because they've invested large sections of their lives to the research. On the other hand, large businesses have only one motivation - to make profit. Admitting that Global Warming is there or that industry has something to do with it means tighter regulations, which translates to less profits for them. In the U.S. we've been through all these steps before when it comes to general pollution. We've seen big industries deny that the waste they dump into rivers causes problems, but we've come to understand - the hard way - that industries have to be forced to not destroy the environment when doing so is easier.

This is not a slam on big industries or the people in them. They are doing what they are supposed to do - protect their own interests. What's deplorable is the average guy on the street who also argues to protect their interests, unless that guy works for the company or owns stock in it. If it were proved that the homeless caused Global Warming, don't think that large energy companies would be out there defending homeless guys. In other words, why support activity that will make life much harder for the next generation?

When you go along with the fabricated debate that Global Warming is no problem, that is exactly what you're doing.


I agree with what you're saying about global warming. Sorry if I am repeating what anyone else says, but I just got tired or reading after Mr. Seward's first couple of sentences. I just wanted to point out a little bit of history because I know more about that than I do about what this person thinks or what these people say. History is for the most part reliable when you look at more than one persons view on, or record of what took place.
First thing I remember is that this person named Erik the Red, as most of us know him as, settle on this little island called Greenland. Now we all know today that Greenland is covered in ICE. However it is strongly believed that back in Erik's time Greenland was in fact green and luscious and could support life pretty easily. Would this not suggest that the world climate was in fact warmer then than it is now? And last I checked SUV's are fairly new, so I don't think Erik driving around caused Greenland to be warmer.
Secondly, I am in no way an Evolutionist, but I am sure that most scientists would agree that our atmosphere was created by the output of volcanoes. And with that being stated if I remember right then volcanoes output somewhere around 78% CO2. So if our atmosphere was created with this high level of CO2 then should our ozone be able to sustain up to that. Yet our CO2 level is somewhere are .035% of our atmosphere. Hmmm.
Lastly the temperature of the earth was considerably higher when the dinosaurs roamed the earth and I know for sure that they weren't driving any SUV's either!
Hey, good luck convincing some of these people to think for themselves and stop believing everything scientists say. Oh, and one more thing. Last I saw there was somewhere around a 29% increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. That is pretty significant. Something like an increase from 280 parts per million to 360 parts per million. Cheers!

Barton Paul Levenson

There is no question at all that putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the ground, all else being equal. And despite decades of desperate searching for some feedback or countervailing process that would make things not equal, nothing has been found. All the feedbacks of recent interest (e.g. water vapor) turn out to be positive; i.e., they intensify the warming rather than fighting it.

The ground stations, satellites and radiosondes in balloons are all now in agreement -- the Earth is warming. And we know that the CO2 is coming from burning fossil fuels because it is depleted in carbon-14. If it were coming from some natural process in the biosphere, there would be plenty of C14, but fossil fuels are so old that nearly all their original C14 has decayed to nitrogen-14.

It's not the Sun, it's not volcanoes, it's not natural cycles. It's human beings burning fossil fuels.

That being said, I agree with you that Kyoto is a bad treaty and that precipitous action might hurt the economy. But we do, sooner or later, and preferably sooner, have to take SOME action to decrease fossil fuel use. There's no serious disagreement among scientists these days.


Proponents of global warming being because of carbon dioxide being put into the atmosphere by industry and burning petroleum fuels are the ones who are politically motivated. There is no real scientific proof to link the tiny increase average global temperature over a long period of time to anything specfic certainly not "greenhouse gas". There is no such thing as "greenhouse gas". CO2 in the air does not make a barrier that holds in heat like the glass of a greenhouse does. There is no “greenhouse effect”. There is no “blanket” of CO2 keeping heat in the air. Heat is in a continuous state of flux and equilibrium being absorbed from the sun and radiating to and from the atmosphere and the oceans. Dr. Paal Brekke, official with the European Space Agency, concluded that the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for “steep reductions in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions”, is a misguided and ineffectual attempt to control the earth's climate.

The very same “environmental scientists” who call for reduction in “greenhouse gas emissions” complain that there has actually been a 12% increase in the output of CO2 into the air by industry and automobiles. Yet the rate of increase of global warming is actually decreasing. Their credibility is waning, while they continue to spew out bogus attempts at substantiation of their belief posing as science.

"It's nonsense. It's statistical nonsense," says atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel (MIT). It's misguided to pinpoint global warming as the cause of specific storms. Yet the power of pretentiousness keeps plastering the nonsense all over the news that global warming actually has something to do with particular local weather conditions. When a reasonable objective scientist shows evidence that global warming is a normal natural occurrence, it goes almost completely unreported by news media pandering to the irrational environmentalists whose main agenda is hate for big industry, not real conservation.



-go see the documentary that follows Al Gore and all the govt's cover up scientic documentation from america's media. no offense, but you should get youre facts straight before you go on your own ranting rave of ignorance.

Joe Ordinary

Wow, what right-wing stupidity and denial of objectivity and science. Thanks, internet!

Landry Poole

I have an open mind to this subject. Why? Because first of all, I believe we need to look towards our future and our childrens future. I read the first poster's reply to the original post, and I was really giving him to credibility until I read "This artifical debate is somewhat like the so-called debate over evolution, in that there isn't one. Ten out of ten scientists will tell you that, not only is evolution real but the diversity of life on Earth is a result of this process. Evolution is not the issue, but a similar mock debate has been fabricated around Glocal Warming." He says Ten out of Ten agree. This is where he lost all credibility. Has he not heard of Creationist? I mean really. There are three rules of thought on the start of the universe. One, Evolution, which was something a man concocted on his own, and then retracted on his death bed. Two, Theistic Evolution, which is Christian Scientist who give credibility to Evolution, but still believe God did it, and Third, Creationist, those who believe in the seven literal days of creation. Now with that, how can anyone say Ten out of Ten agree in Evolution? I'd say he is trying to scew the evidence in his favor instead of presenting facts. It anoys me to no end, when the facts are tainted to support and agenda. He also stated that we have not had warmer weather since 1990, yet again, just before the Little Ice Age, the Medievil Period was considerably warmer than now. Further, the trend now actually shows a cooling trend. I'm not arguing that the earth may be warming, but if it is, it is in a normal cyclic patter, not some elivated DOOMS DAY event. Just like Farenheit 911, Al Gore also has an egenda in his movie. Farenheit 911 was countered by Farenhype 911 and just as that was political propoganda, so it may come to pass that Al Gore's movie is as well. The writer says that Industry is paying scientist to counter those who agree that Global Warming is man-made, but does not state that those who agree are given GRANTS to find evidence to support it. If they shown any evidence to the contrary, would they still receive Grants? NASA was falling off the face of the earth, right up until they said they could provide better intel of Global Warming with a GRANT and use of the Space Shuttle. People will say anything to get money will they not? GLobal Warming is big business, don't you forget it. No matter which side you are on, people are making millions defending their side. What I see in general thought is the Apponents putting out facts, and the supporters bending those facts to their favor. Either with earth is warmer now than ever, or it isn't. Which is it? It isn't, that the real truth. If there were five ice ages, then there had to be five warming periods as well, would you not agree? Where was the CO2 output then? A study just came out of Germany that suggests limiting CO2 may in fact be bad. I'm not jumping on the information bandwagon and saying I agree, but it is information none the less that has to be studied, not just noses turned up because it does not agree with your version of "Scientist say"

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • News & Commentary

The Fighting 101st