Skip to content

Global Warming Naysayers Says the Heat is On!

November 1, 2011

The subject of Climate Change and Global Warming has a polarizing effect in the U.S. Like religion, you either believe or don’t believe. Strong sentiments resonate on both sides. It seems impossible to try to sway either camp.

One of the biggest excuses used by anthropogenic climate change and global warming skeptics has been the unscrupulous nature of the scientific community. In a poll I conducted a few years ago titled “Climate Change – Fact or Fiction,” about 40% of 478 pages of comments raised concern over Climategate, scientists, financial gains and the political arena. Comments included:

“Unfortunately, there are so-called ‘scientists’ in someone’s financial pocket that are not credible, either.”

“Global warming is a hoax in the grand tradition of big, scary problems that all require huge expensive solutions and tend to empower the establishment. To understand global warming, you don’t need to study science; you need to study history and politics.

“What remains scientifically untenable is the manner in which global temperature data is massaged to try to show upward trends where the trend is either neutral or downward.”

“You have a few who claim to understand the heart of the issue and hold the answers that can’t be shared (Climate scientists and priests).”

“The evidence (global warming) has been documented, but not in an ethical manner. Emails clearly show a desire to prevent certain scientists (with opposing views) from obtaining raw data, and then to destroy the data when it was apparent that hiding the data would not last much longer. To simply ignore logical arguments based on, “We’ve already decided we’re right, and we won’t listen to your arguments.” is the epitome of intellectual arrogance and hypocrisy.”

“The more I learn about so-called climate change, the less confidence I have in the “science”. Seems like it is one more scam to sell books, make money, protect grants and so on. The evidence seems to suggest that the Planet has actually been cooling for the past decade. The fact that these “Scientists” tried to cover up data that did not support their theory is highly damaging to their case.”

For whatever reason, the winds seem to be shifting in favor of the reality of climate change. Earlier this week headlines throughout the country rang with the tune “Earth is Warming, Scientist and Former Skeptic Says.”

Seth Borenstein of the Huffington Post reports:

“….. he (Richard Muller, a prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming) determined they (climate scientists) were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.”

“….. study of the world’s surface temperatures by was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers.”

“….. he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.”

“….. we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

In closing, to the extent that more believe in climate change, a remark in the article sets a somber tone to the difficulties that lie ahead; “Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn’t warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it’s too expensive to do something about.”

While we cannot turn our clocks back, except for the hour loss on daylight savings time, we can start today in earnest. All America needs is a supportive and effective energy policy!

3 Comments leave one →
  1. November 3, 2011 11:11 AM

    Mankind now at 7 Billion souls have removed 50% of the forests during
    the past two hundred years. Called the lungs of the Earth, I am forced
    to wonder how well do you think you can function with half of your lungs
    gone? That is Anthropogenic. Millions of cars on the road and growing
    in China and India, etc. The additional Coal Power Generating plants with no mitigation plan other than call it clean coal. Plant trees to reduce the CO2 emissions. To borrow a Nike slogan. Just do it.

  2. May 23, 2016 1:25 PM

    I suppose it is a good thing that the CO2 levels are rising to help re-grow the forests. (BTW, do you have a source for your 50% claim? That seems a bit high to me.) Also, I heard that water vapor is the largest ‘greenhouse gas’ by far. Is that true? I also heard that rising global temperatures were causing the oceans to off-gas more CO2, causing atmospheric CO2 levels to rise. Is that true?

  3. May 23, 2016 3:59 PM

    Carbon Dioxide Has Negative Effects on Plants and Crops
    By Twanna Harps on April 8, 2014
    Carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is having negative effects on plants and the quality of wheat crops. It might also have deleterious effects on other types of crops like barley, rice, and potatoes. It’s not that carbon dioxide is a bad thing for plants, it is actually good for them. It is the excessive amounts of it that are being trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, that is causing problems. CO2 is emitted, in large part, by the burning of fossil fuels from human activities, which is a major cause of global warming. This causes the warming of climates, and large amounts CO2 to collect in the atmosphere, thus affecting plants and crops.

    A new study, the first of its kind, performed by researchers at the University of California, Davis, demonstrated the inhibition of wheat crops to convert nitrate into a protein, due to increased CO2 levels, which affects its nutritional value. In the past, studies have exhibited this reaction in plants, but this is the first time it is shown in field grown crops. Lead author of the new study and plant scientist Professor Arnold Bloom said “Food quality is declining under the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that we are experiencing.” Plant protein is vital to the entire food chain because humans assimilate it from the plants, or from animals that eat the plants, into energy.

    The researchers at UC Davis analyzed samples of wheat that were grown in the late 1990s at the Maricopa Agricultural Center in Arizona. These crops were grown in plots where air enriched with carbon dioxide was released, to simulate what might be the reality in coming decades. Since chemical analysis is now available, researchers studied these samples, and came to the conclusion that the increased CO2 levels impeded the assimilation of nitrate into protein, in the crops. Experiments will need to be done on other crops like rice, barley, and potatoes to assess the risks to those foods, but the assumption among researchers that the outcome will be the same.

    If carbon dioxide levels continue to rise and negatively effect plants and crops, the amount of food proteins in the whole world could drop as much as three percent in just a few decades. There are already people all around the world without enough food or proper nutrition, especially protein.

    A similar study was done at the University of Hohenheim in Germany. Dr. Andreas Fangmeier and Petra Högy grew wheat crops and exposed them to high levels of carbon dioxide over a three-year period. The concentrations of CO2 that were used, are the same as the projected amounts for the Earth in 2050. The results showed that not only are amino acids like protein affected, but trace elements as well. There was a 14 percent increase in lead and an eight percent drop in the iron content of the crop. These are both negative for the health of people around the world, many of which, are already iron deficient. Too much lead in the body is a health risk. This wheat is also potentially harder to sell with smaller grains and the potential of a different dough consistency, due to the change in protein levels.

    Historical documentation reveals that the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 39 percent since 1800. Presently, projections show that this could increase by 40 to 140 percent by the end of this century. It is not clear to researchers exactly why higher amounts of carbon dioxide has negative effects on plants and crops, but fertilizing heavily with nitrogen is not a quick fix. It might help compensate the food quality, but ultimately it would only worsen problems due to higher costs, more nitrates seeping into groundwater, and an increase in the emission of nitrous oxide, a strong greenhouse gas.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: