We live in turbulent times; our minds constantly pulled this way and that by the media and our professors, friends and family, what is fact and what is fiction? Who should we believe? The only answer is to do the research, find legitimate sources, unearth the facts, and discover the truth for yourself.
This is the case for me and the issue of global warming. It’s constantly in the news and the media. Newsweek recently published an article titled, “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine” that claims to explain everything, but contains few if any real, solid facts on the issue. So is there really a consensus on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming?
As part of my Modern Culture and Media course over the summer, I decided to find out. I chose Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth as my pop culture text, and quickly discovered the many scientific inaccuracies that lay within. Surprisingly (or not), this “non-fiction” text is chock-full of phony-baloney. During my research, I found clear evidence that Gore did not do his homework before or after it was published. Not only that, but he doesn’t believe in his own strong words of caution.
Take a moment, if you will, to read the attached word document. It’s a copy of the paper I wrote for my class concerning An Inconvenient Truth and all the myths and inaccuracies it contains. Keep in mind that it was intentionally written in a particular tone, because I was trying to relay to the reader how easy it is to write in a biased, even condescending manner, especially when you are passionate about a particular subject. This can have an adverse effect on the audience, even if the evidence you are presenting is clear and honest.
My point is, don’t believe everything you read. Global warming may be real, but it’s not as bad as they make it out to be, and there IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE in support of anthropogenic global warming.
That said; I am a firm believer that it’s time to clean up our act. As a citizen of Upstate New York, I’m really tired of acid rain from the Midwest destroying our beautiful Adirondack park. It’s time to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels, which would clearly benefit us environmentally, politically, economically, and in a thousand other ways.
Tune in for more on the Energy Crisis and Alternate Fuels later.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| DebunkingGlobalWarming_ProU.doc | 1.15 MB |
Interesting Note,
Mars seems to be suffering from the same 'global warming' threat that we are, with their polar caps disappearing over the last 4 or 5 summers.
Unless someone finds a way to blame President Bush and the Mars Rovers for martian global warming, it seems to me that the threat definately isn't dependent on mankind.
Also, when I was a baby, the threat was global cooling, on how we were all going to freeze to death in a new man-made ice age.
I'm glad we could, within one generation, stop and reverse Global Cooling . . . .
Or, much more likely, the Earth has weather patterns and there are intra- and inter- solar system events that affect the weather on this small flying ball of dirt and life.
Also, if Gore really believed in this Global Warming nonsense, he wouldn't fly a giant fuel-sucking jet around the world to give speeches, he'd telecommute. He also wouldn't live in a home that uses more electricty in a month than the average family uses in a year.
He just wants attention and still can't get over having lost in 2000.
We have cycled through the global warming / global cooling claims in the media four distinct times since 1895.
As for Gore, according to the TVA his Nashville home alone consumes approximately $30,000 a month in energy costs.
I'm a firm believer in the theory of human caused global warming, but even if other people do not there's still no reason for people not to strive to be more energy efficient. There's no reason why we shouldn't lessen our carbon imprint or strive to become more energy conscious individuals. In my opinion you don't have to believe in global warming to want to help the environment :)
On behalf of the Midwest I do apologize for the acid rain, we are much to obsessed with coal and it blows :(
`lacey
There are no beautiful surfaces without terrible depth...
I'm open-minded: show me some evidence that anthropogenic global warming is real, and it's possible I would change my stance.
However, I agree with you that it's clear we need to change out carbon-obsessed ways. Anybody have any good suggestions on how to lesson our consumption?
All right I have a TON of homework tonight so I hope some copying/pasting of links is acceptable!
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html
god i'm a bum!
`lacey
There are no beautiful surfaces without terrible depth...
Ok.... here's the thing. I'm going to reply to each of your links in turn, because I think that's the best way to show you what I mean about researching your point, and really delving, rather than taking it at face value. It's not by any means meant to put you down, just to point out how these sources can easily be misinterpreted. Also, you need to be sure to make the distinction between global warming and anthropogenic global warming.
GISS: This source is 8 years old. That makes it ancient in the Science community. The chart you see is exactly as I described in my paper. It does not prove ANTHROPOGENIC global warming; it only proves that the earth is heating up. The simulations are moot, because we have no accurate methods of simulating temperature changes (if you don't believe me, chart the weather forecasting vs actual temperature for a few weeks, and then come back and talk). The author also clearly refers to uncertainties multiple times in his article, leaving room for speculation. I would also like to point as that as CO2 levels increase, so do the levels of CO2 being absorbed by plants, and that CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now in the past, so many of these studies do not prove much.
NOAA: This page is partially based on the EXTREMELY biased IPCC report. Read my paper for more information on why they are biased. For a discussion refuting IPCC's claims on our contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere, see also my paper. There are sources refuting that page saying that CO2 levels are at their highest in 20 million years, and 420,000 years really isn't that long in the scheme of things. Most of this webpage is refuted in my paper, with sources researched from scientific periodicals. Which brings me to the point that websites from government organizations stating broad theories or statements do not prove anything. It's better to provide sources from scientific periodicals showing studies to really prove a point. If you need more sources proving the validity of climate change, but refuting anthropogenic climate change, ask, I've got them printed out in a binder up at school. This website is for information mostly on climate change, not on anthropogenic climate change, once again leaving room for speculation.
IPCC: I won't even give this site the time of day. They are in it for the money, and will say anything to get more funding. Many of the studies listed on the site, if you read them, will directly state that this proves nothing about anthropogenic climate change, and only proves climate change is occurring. Scientists have to leave room for speculation, because these are only theories.
NAS: This is just a listing of books written about climate change. Any organization or person can write a book about climate change, and what their opinion on it is. That doesn't mean the book supports anthropogenic climate change. Not to mention this subject is a serious money-maker.
SOCC: There is nothing on the site that supports anthropogenic climate change. We know there is a natural warming of the climate from the last Little Ice Age, and that global average temperatures still need to rise approximately 1 degree Centigrade to reach the 3000 year optimum. I'm not too worried - this is clearly a natural cycle.
Go Here:
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=258012005
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-perma...
EPA: The EPA gets a lot of money from legislation passed on environmental "calamities" - in fact, 1/3 of the legislation passed since 1970 have been based on the environment. Use this site as a resource for climate change - not as a source to learn about anthropogenic climate change - because it doesn't prove anything. The EPA just takes it for granted that humans are causing it and then tells you to stop driving your car. : p
RS: No computer models are accurate. We do not have the computer power or ability to do so yet.
AGU: No proof. In fact, the document clearly states anthropogenic climate change is a theory. They are asking for clear proof of it in this document.
AIP: This is a document supporting the AGU's mission to find the truth about anthropogenic climate change... again, no documentation.
NCAR: This website contains zero documentation.
CMOS: Endorses further research into climate change and determining whether anthropogenic climate change is, in fact, an issue of not. No evidence whether is exists.
AMS: Endorses the "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" Great... no documentation. Everybody supports, nobody wants to do the work. So, in my opinion, IPCC gets the money, without having to do anything but say, "Yep, the Earth's heating up alright" which they've been doing for more than a decade without showing any decisive evidence.
Here is a copy of the statement: "Joint Academies' Statement: Global Response to Climate Change" : http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
I think this is great... we should be reducing our fossil fuel emissions... but for the RIGHT REASONS. Clearly, fossil fuels have an adverse impact on our environment. But not from greenhouse gases. Stop giving your money to Al Gore and the IPCC, and start investing it in improved technologies, like clean coal, or, even better, eliminating fossil fuel dependence altogether!
... Phew that was a lot of work for 10 points!
I agree that global warming isn't just human made, it's a mixture of the weakening magnetic field, and the sun on a warming cycle. But the one site that you don't agree with because they're biased, will be just as biased as the paper you've attached. No paper is ever unbiased.
I'm glad that you see that; it's the point I am trying to make. My paper is very clearly biased; I wrote it that way intentionally. However, if you check the sources there are a number of scientific periodicals and other VERY legitimate sources utilized. Therefore, I have reduced the power of my own argument by going overboard using condescending language.
Science is about theories and hypothesis. It will be virtually impossible for anyone to prove that global warming is really caused by humans or not. In my eyes, however, there is an overwhelming amount of proof that the current trend is NOT caused by humans, and is being used to generate money and power for particular environmentalist organizations, rather than where that money would really be useful for improving the environment.
The IPCC is not all made of scientists, half of this organization are politicians. I'm glad more people are starting to deny this faulty hypothesis. By any chance, have you seen the "The Great Global Warming Swindle'?
Actually, no, I haven't.
Is it available online?
Scientific American is a very credible source
Your first website on your sources cited is three years old and the link doesn't work FYI. Surfing around this semi reliable government site, it says that recycling is good, which in all honesty, really isn't. You have to take into account all of the bleaching, processing, refining and gas that goes into making products reusable again. All of these processes that are used in recycling really become negated by all the harm it does.
In response to your second citation this was a statement posted towards the bottom:
"Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.
Yes accurate temperature records have indeed only been kept since the end of the 19th century, but the Earth can tell us the rest. Ice sheets are formed when snow falls onto them and eventually hardens into ice. During this hardening process air gets trapped as bubbles inside the ice. They do core samples on the ice and determine the CO2 levels from this. This statement doesn't say anything about anything. This site is not a scientific one, it is about media bias- give me a science site and I'll consider it.
Link number three is a PERSONAL website of some astronaut, climatology is really not their strong source he is not an expert, and luckily does not claim to be an expert, on climate or climate change According to his own website Steve is also an "expert" in the subject area of Astronomy for the web site. QUOTATION MARKS WERE NOT ADDED BY ME THEY ARE OF HIS OWN PERSONAL SITE.
I do not tend to use Al Gore as a resource so I'm not going to look at anything either for or against him. I believe his documentary set the right direction, but there are many flaws in it that I can't overlook so we'll take him out of the discussion since neither of us believe him to be a credible resource.
Andrew Kenny? I've googled him- I can't find anything could you post like a bio or something?
Half of the last internet source's cites date back to 1988. 1988!!! That's "ancient" in the science world, right?
`lacey
There are no beautiful surfaces without terrible depth...
There are no beautiful surfaces without terrible depth...
I think it's funny that people believe what is written is automatically fact. The same for what is spoken by "significant" people. I do not believe global warming has anything to do with the human race but I do think we need to get over our energy-sucking tendencies.
As for Gore. Mr. I Love the Environment needs to stop talking because he really has no idea what he's talking about. Plus, he's a total hypocrite.
*two thumbs up*