Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

The Earth is warming but the cause is unknown

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperatures, but conclude it is too early to ascribe any cause to these changes, man-made or natural.

* Claude All�gre, French geophysicist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [6])
* Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3�C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003 [7])
* David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [8])
* Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5�C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [9] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas � albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [10] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
* Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [11])

[edit] The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes

Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities.

* Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [12]) (See also [13], [14], [15])
* Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." [16] In 2003 Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air�s increased greenhouse gas content." [17]
* Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [18])
* George V. Chilingar, professor of civil and petroleum engineering at the University of Southern California, and Leonid F. Khilyuk: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth�s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth�s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [19])
* William M. Gray, professor of atmospheric science and meteorologist, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." (BBC News, 16 Nov 2000 [20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." (Washington Post, May 28, 2006 [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing�all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more." (Discover, vol. 26 no. 9, September 2005 [22])
* Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [23])
* David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [24])
* Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Universit� Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [25])
* Tim Patterson [26], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [27]
* Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities.", Environment News, 2001 [28]
* Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [29]
* Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [30] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [31]. �It�s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.� (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)
* Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [32])
* Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth�s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [33]
* Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [34], [35])

[edit] Global warming is good for human society

This section contains scientists who accept that global warming will occur, but advocate the position that it will be of little impact or a net positive for human society.

* Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University: "[W]arming has been shown to positively impact human health, while atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been shown to enhance the health-promoting properties of the food we eat, as well as stimulate the production of more of it. ... [W]e have nothing to fear from increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and global warming.", Enhanced or Impaired? Human Health in a CO2-Enriched Warmer World, co2science.org, Nov, 2003, p. 30 ([36]).

[EFLtrainer]

Great. 22 out of millions. (There are millions in the U.S. alone.) Keep up the good work.

[Rapacious Mr. Batstove]

For anyone mildly interested in this and willing to read into both sides of the argument but don't know where to start - read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. A work of fiction yes, possibly even misleading, yes , but a well researched easy way to get thinking and questioning the current climate of the ongoing global warming saga. And a lot more fun than sifting through research papers.

But if you like sifting through data, facts and figures then take a look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ans see for yourself

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

[gang ah jee]

[twg]

[cbclark4]

The question is not whether pollution is bad or dirty, I think everyone agrees that pollution is bad and dirty.

The question is whether the emissions are the primary cause of Global warming.

As in the sixty when pollution was seen as the cause of global cooling these a re great generalizations which have been used to cause "fear" in order to generate social movement. The movement is primarily against "Global Commercialism", and particularly the USA.

There are no restriction in the Kyoto Accords, to the amount of pollution that China and India may pump into the atmosphere.

The Global Warming movement and it's attempt at scaring the world against America is as evil as the Nazi fear mongering against the Jews.

cbc

[nasigoreng]

Around 15,000 years ago there were glaciations pushing into the American Midwest. There were no SUV's or coal plants around so what caused the glaciers to recede?

answer: global warming.

This means that warming trends (global warming) can occur without human activity.

Some will claim that scientists who disagree with the idea that humans have caused/are responsible for [Al Gore] will most surely be labelled as tools of the oil companies. But does that mean scientists promoting [Al Gore] are just all altruistic beings fighting to save the planet?:

[Sincinnatislink]

The discussion of global warming says very loudly that some variation is normal, and even well-documented and analyzed. What makes global warming an issue is a current unprecedented spike in temperature.

[sundubuman]

uhmm, earth to liberal lefty......

the only problem with your post is that it is about 8 years out of date. Temperatures peaked in 98 and have been cooling since.

Global And NZ Temperatures Are Cooling, Not Warmin
Wednesday, 10 January 2007, 4:31 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
Media release
10 January

Global And NZ Temperatures Are Cooling, Not Warming

Figures just released by the U.S. National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) show that mean global temperature for 2006 was 0.24 deg C cooler than it was in 1998.

The seven years 1999 to 2005 were also cooler than 1998.

Unlike air temperature measured by thermometers on the ground, NSSTC data comes from highly accurate measurements by satellites, correct to one tenths of a degree C.

NSSTC is a research organization partnership between NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama universities, US federal agencies and industry. click here

"This data suggests global warming might have stopped eight years ago, in line with what might be expected from the natural cycles of warming and cooling that are common features of climate" said Professor Augie Auer, chairman of the scientific panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

"It comes two days after the statement by the NIWA National Climate Centre that New Zealand can expect cooler but drier than average conditions over the next three months. This prompts the question: how much more cooling will have to occur before NIWA will admit that global warming is not happening.

"We know that emissions of carbon dioxide are still occurring, which prompts a further question: for how much longer can NIWA support claims by the present government that CO2 causes catastrophic warming, and needs to be curbed by the imposition of special taxes or emission charges. Surely it's now time to put a stop to these sensationalist claims, which are not supported by verifiable scientific data" said Professor Auer.

ENDS

[Sincinnatislink]

I am not a liberal, nor is are liberals necessarily leftists.

I went to the site.

It's all propaganda. Here's a favorite, just from the first page:

[freethought]

What's with all the global warming posts recently?

Seriously, are some of you people getting paid to keep posting the same thing over and over agan?

[khyber]

[khyber]

Sorry for the DP...
Why didn't you cite the wiki article that you got your list from sun?
woulda made things easier.

[EFLtrainer]

Yeah, Iposted about the storm of posts since the release of the latest report last Friday. It's obvious that the spin machine has been cranked up. Wouldn't be surprised to find Exxon's scam has been extended to the little people to try to give it the appearance of grassroots legitimacy. These types of posts show just how well Exxon has done its job.

I mean, look at the stupid crap these people say. It's a fight against economic development. How can you get any more disingeniuos? Developing a massive new energy system across multiple fronts will not lead to economic development? Stupid. A lie. A healthier population will not mean savings in medical costs and improvements in worker efficiency? Stupid, and a lie.

Etc.

As for that article out of Australia - BY WAY OF THE US GOV'T.... 'nuff said.

[sundubuman]

actually as I see it, the issue has two main points, both involving the defense of freedom.

One is economic freedom.

and the second is intellectual freedom. Global warming skeptics are losing jobs/not getting hired due to their exercise in intellectual honesty.

Anyhow, in 10 years, this whole debate will most likely be over, as the Earth has entered a cooling trend.

And then the enviro-left will have to come up with another bugaboo to raise funds and keep their industry churning.