Spring Break
Global warming skepticism fraught with misinformation
M. Alex Stephens
Issue date: 10/29/09 Section: Opinion
 Last Saturday was the International Day of Climate Action, a day designated by the group 350.org to raise awareness about what some say is the biggest hoax to have ever perpetrated our culture, global warming. I can understand where these non-believers of climate change (or global warming, or global obliteration, call it what you will) are initially coming from.
Like any sensible person they are hesitant to believe what scientists are preaching -- that's good. However, they inexplicably give more credence to the small minority of dissenting voices than the vast majority of the consenting. Why?
Most self-proclaimed free-thinking skeptics are trapped in circles of erroneous information that masquerades as fact. They rely on the flimsy anecdotes and hollow cries of made up science that baseless media outlets promulgate as the truth.
For the umpteenth time, the science behind global warming is solid and extremely non-partisan. The sensitivity of Earth's climate to the concentration of gases in its atmosphere is a realization older than a century but has roots dating back 250 years.
Horace Benedict de Saussure's experiments during the 1760s demonstrated the first greenhouse heat experiment. In 1824 Saussure's experiments were elaborated on by Joseph Fourier who argued that the temperature of the Earth could be augmented. In 1861 John Tyndell demonstrated in a lab that complex atmospheric molecules could absorb thermal radiation and in 1896 Svante Arrhenius predicted that changes in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, among other gases, could trigger glacial advances or retreats.
The list goes on. Thousands of scientists have since refined the understanding of global warming to prove its accuracy and reality. They include 2,500 scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada, all of which are extremely credible, established and legitimate institutions. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Like any sensible person they are hesitant to believe what scientists are preaching -- that's good. However, they inexplicably give more credence to the small minority of dissenting voices than the vast majority of the consenting. Why?
Most self-proclaimed free-thinking skeptics are trapped in circles of erroneous information that masquerades as fact. They rely on the flimsy anecdotes and hollow cries of made up science that baseless media outlets promulgate as the truth.
For the umpteenth time, the science behind global warming is solid and extremely non-partisan. The sensitivity of Earth's climate to the concentration of gases in its atmosphere is a realization older than a century but has roots dating back 250 years.
Horace Benedict de Saussure's experiments during the 1760s demonstrated the first greenhouse heat experiment. In 1824 Saussure's experiments were elaborated on by Joseph Fourier who argued that the temperature of the Earth could be augmented. In 1861 John Tyndell demonstrated in a lab that complex atmospheric molecules could absorb thermal radiation and in 1896 Svante Arrhenius predicted that changes in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, among other gases, could trigger glacial advances or retreats.
The list goes on. Thousands of scientists have since refined the understanding of global warming to prove its accuracy and reality. They include 2,500 scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Royal Society of London and the Royal Society of Canada, all of which are extremely credible, established and legitimate institutions. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 15
codehead
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:28 AM MST
Al Gore's movie is fraught with misinformation. See Dimmock v Sec Edu.
As for Exxon spending millions, why shouldn't they protect their business from a sketchy AGW claims? $100 billion has been spent on proving AGW. (Continued…)
jimmy
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:44 AM MST
" So what would scientists gain from claiming humans are causing global warming?"
Their livelihoods, what is the likelihood that a scientist would receive a climate grant for research if they did not go along with the "global warming" scare tactic? Highly unlikely. (Continued…)
AAGW
posted 10/29/09 @ 10:55 AM MST
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&em
Registered Independent
posted 10/29/09 @ 12:42 PM MST
Here's an "unflimsy" fact for you Mr. Stephens; this past summer was the coolest summer on record in New York since the year 1917.
So it would be "irrational" of you to discount this newest data proving "global cooling". (Continued…)
Julia Weichselbaum
posted 10/29/09 @ 1:35 PM MST
[QUOTE id="e93fd681-3df6-4a28-a9f7-5d90f6236d6f"]" So what would scientists gain from claiming humans are causing global warming?"
Their livelihoods, what is the likelihood that a scientist would receive a climate grant for research if they did not go along with the "global warming" scare tactic? Highly unlikely. (Continued…)
Zach
posted 10/29/09 @ 2:10 PM MST
Again this author simply spouts his agenda, which is obviously pitted against anything oil, coal, livestock industry, or anything conservative whatsoever. (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 10/29/09 @ 2:18 PM MST
Once again, another article proving how brainwashed you are and how well you fit into your major; keep spewing the BS.
Initially, I bought into the idea of anthropogenic global warming. (Continued…)
The Devil's Advocate
posted 10/29/09 @ 4:20 PM MST
While there is copious evidence that greenhouse gas does lead to overall temperature increase, there are equally numerous authorities that proclaim that the earth's temperature naturally fluctuates. (Continued…)
Julia Weichselbaum
posted 10/29/09 @ 8:12 PM MST
To all of you who don't believe that agricultural waste is a serious environmental threat...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/
Not that any of you would actually want to watch something educational that might challenge your narrow, baseless views. (Continued…)
john
posted 10/30/09 @ 9:02 PM MST
I am so happy that normal people are finally standing up to the enviro-hippi wackos point of view! I am so tired of hearing the Al Goobs of the world spew their crap of saving the world. (Continued…)
Post a Comment