Misconceptions About Global Warming, page 1

Originally posted by Yarcofin
It is important to note that global warming is simply a theory, and there is no scientific consensus that such a phenomenon is actually occurring.

There is broad consensus throughout science that the earth is warming.

On top of that, more than one hundred noted scientists, including a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter stating that costly actions to lower greenhouse gases are not justified (Burnett, 1997).

A hundred people saying anything is meaningless.

To start off with, humans have a limited ecological impact that is not likely to create global warming.

Please demonstrate that.

As a second point, there is not enough evidence to prove that global warming is taking place.

It is practically undisputed that there is a warming trend, and that the trend cannot be explained by any of the natural drivers of climate.

The changes in the Earth’s temperature and greenhouse gas levels are part of a natural cycle.

Please show which climate forcers are driving this warming trend.

Finally, global warming actually has many beneficial effects.

The destruction of cities along the coasts, where something like 80-90 percent of hte human population lives, is probably a bad thing. The alteration of climate patterns throughout the world, possibly switching rich agricultural areas (such as the central portion of the US) to other regions of the world, is not a good thing, for americans anyway. It is because of an accident of climate that the US has the basis for its global strength, alter the climate, alter that basis.

According to the Institute for Economic Affairs, pollutants have fallen by sixty percent in the last thirty years in modern countries.

?

And you would attribute this to global warming? That doesn't make sense.

Many scientists and prominent world figures believe that the cost of implementing policy to counteract global warming far outweighs the benefit of such programs.

Thats hardly got anything to do with whether or not global warming is man-made.

Meteorologists have problems accurately predicting weather for next week, so how can they claim to predict how the climate will react in decades to come?

They're entirely different sorts of models. Engineers use computer models to create buildings. Do you suggest that we stop building bridges and skyscrapers, because the models are 'theoretical'??
What, precisely, is wrong with the models being used, btw? What factors are unrealistic or inaccurate?

Supporters of global warming suggest that the global warming phenomenon is responsible for the increases in extreme weather occurrences

Very few scientists would try to make a correlation between such a broad global trend and just one or two seasons worth of weather. No doubt, there are lots of people in general saying that GW makes for worse hurricanes, but, on that, there isn't enough data to make such a statement.

What does that have to do with GW being man-made?

For example, rising sea levels are often blamed on global warming. The fact, however, is that sea levels have risen over three hundred feet in the past eighteen thousand years.

And it was because of changes in ice volume, dependant upon global climate.

In reality, the current rate of rising sea levels is actually lower than the average rate for the past eighteen thousand years.

That shouldn't be a surprise, since that was coming out of a global ice age with tremendous volumes of ice melting.
What does that have to do with the current warming being caused by man?

In a similar way, temperature variation over the past fifteen thousand years is well within the natural range.

That's meaningless. No scientists have been stating that its warmer now that its ever been, or anything even remotely like that. Why do you keep choosing arguments that aren't being made to refute??

. When it comes to carbon dioxide levels, the Earth’s oceans and land hold over fifty times more of this gas than the atmosphere.

And? What does that have to do with increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere aids plant growth and permits vegetation to grow in more arid locations.

Except those arid locations that are deserts.

Since most animals rely on plants for food, increased carbon dioxide levels would improve animal populations as well.

The human economy, of course, will be ruined. So I guess if you want a world that is nice for animals and warm-adapted plants, then its all good.

As plant and animal populations grow, resulting from the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, people on Earth could be cured of world hunger and poverty (Robinson & Robinson, 1997).

That is the most ridiculous statement yet.

Global Warming concurrent with changes in sea levels will mean that the cities in which people live will become unhabitable, and the regions used for growing produce now will become more arid, possibly useless. Global Warming isnt' going to end world hunger.

Thus, an increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide levels may allow humans to live longer and healthier lives.

Excluding, of course, those who depend upon agriculture and livestock to get their food, or those who've had to become refugess (ala Katrina) because their cities are underwater from rising sea levels.