Why is so much global warming info turning out to be fake?

The number is eye-popping, and it was repeated so often it became gospel.





The snowpack in the Cascades, it was said, shrank by 50 percent in the last half-century. It's been presented as glaring evidence of the cost exacted by global warming — the drying up of a vital water source.





That statistic has been repeated in a government report, on environmental-advocacy Web sites and in media coverage. Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently mentioned it in a guest column in The Seattle Times.





Here's the problem: The number is dead wrong.





The debunking of this statistic, and the question of just how much the state's snowpack shrank, is stirring up a heated debate among the region's climate scientists.





On Monday, it escalated further when University of Washington researcher and State Climatologist Philip Mote stripped a colleague of his title as associate state climatologist, triggering concerns that scientific dissent is being quashed.

Why is so much global warming info turning out to be fake?
Recently a state climatologist was told by the governor of the state not to use his title because his views against global warming conflicted with her political views on global warming.


http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll...





A climatologist who has been speaking out on global warming has received death threats in the last few months for speaking out against global warming.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cove...





Last year a Russian Scientist's paper showing the primary cause of "global warming" may be ice crystals in the upper atmosphere not pollution, his paper was yanked from circulation and is not well known.


http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html





No one mentions the fact solar out put has increased in the last 20 years and will start to decline in 2012. In fact the increase in solar output is shrugged off.


http://www.livescience.com/environment/0...





No one mentions that the planet itself releases more greenhouse gasses from one volcano in Africa than the US in one year.


http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/data/volcan...





Al Gore himself is part owner of a company that help "clean" the carbon foot print of companies; do you think he would admit there is really no global warming? If he actually believed it he would not use more natural gas for one of his houses than the 200 room hotel I work at.


http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/arti...





There are too many holes or exceptions in the global warming theory that if any of it came to light all the money going to "research" would dry up, and these people don’t want to give up the golden goose.





There is a concerted effort to silence people who disagree; fact is any one who opposes the "gospel of global warming" is a target. Michael Chriton was even blasted for his Book “State of fear” for making claims against global warming.





In fact if solar output does prove to be the culprit, I guarantee when temperatures drop around 2012 the far left will scream success as though their actions were the cause.





It’s about feeling good and slamming the other guy, not actually fixing the problem.





Is pollution a problem? Yes. Is it the root cause of “global warming”? No.
Reply:Just look around you at the polluted rivers, lakes and even the oceans. Look what pollution has done to them. Fish and plants often cannot live in the environment it is so polluted.


Just look around at the chemicals that are dumped into the earth which makes it unlivable for plants, animals and humans. The only creature that can survive is the roachbug and rat. If our pollution can do that to the environment on which we depend on for air and food and shelter, common sense says that pollution can affect the atmosphere and change the climate. All it takes is COMMON SENSE.
Reply:Can't wait to see the spin on this one.
Reply:No, more and more scientist are coming forward now to dispute the man made global warming myth.





The UN panel of climate has been sued several times already for listing scientist as supporting their latest global warming finds, when the scientist did not support them.





In some areas, what the global warming supporters are telling the public are 100% reversed from what the science shows.





The main debate about global warming is, is the man made increase in C02, causing the earths temperature to increase.





Scientist taking Ice Core samples, have repeatably shown that increased C02 in the atmosphere shows up about 800 years after the earths temperature increases.





IE: global warming causes increased C02, not increased C02 causes global warming.





The global warming community says the earth is hotter now than every before, but this is not true,





In the middle ages the earth was hotter than it is now, it was so hot then, England grew grapes and exported wine to France. Something that England is to cold to do now.





Only about 0.5% of all C02 in the atmosphere can be contributed to man made causes. The oceans are the largest contributor of C02 into the atmosphere.





People tend to forget that between 1940 and 1980, the earths temperature was decreasing at such a rate, that many scientist thought we were headed for another ice age.





You would think with the post WWll increase in manufacturing and the increased release of pollutants into the atmosphere that the temperature would have increased.





Im a sceptic on manmade global warming, to many claims made so far, have been proved to be false and misleading.





I think we would be better suited to worry more about what pollutants were are releasing into the enviroment such as lead, mercury, pcb's etc that have been scientificly shown to show up in ground water and animals .
Reply:1) A lot of it is political rather than scientific.


2) Most pols know absolutely NOTHING about science.
Reply:I don't think there is any doubt that glaciers in Alaska, the Himalayas, the Alps, Greenland Antarctica are receding and have been for years. You can see it, for crying out loud. Huge sheets of ice are breaking off of Antarctica. Companies are preparing for the opening of shipping lanes through the arctic because the ice is moving back so much. I have no idea about the Cascades, or why this guy got fired in Washington, but the rest of this is very obvious and nobody disputes it.





The dispute is over whether climate changes are due to man or to natural cycles that we have no control over.





EDIT: Here is the website of the Washington State Climatologist's office. Apparently the 50 year loss of snowpack is 29%, not 50%
Reply:Because if you can scare enough people they will back any sort of law that view as being a remedy, at any cost!
Reply:Sorry mate, but global warming is real and the threat to civilization is dire. Better than ninety percent of the WORLD'S climatologists and other scientists agree on this. The occasional error or misprint involving a minor aspect of the larger situation does not diminish the fact that global warming is going to severely impact humankind, and not, if you'll excuse the pun, in a kindly way. You think you know better? Show us your academic degrees, your research results and tell us who paid for your research.
Reply:Dissent is being squashed and the big polluters like cars and oil companies pay scientists huge sums of money to counter such claims...if you believe the Bible you will understand that warming is inevitable but we can slow the rate of warmth.





If you have money; power and influence you can get people to believe whatever you want them to.
Reply:Ricardo, this is another way "the powers that are" use to divert people to the real issue. Ask yourself this, what does it have to take for us to stop polluting the earth? Is it for the sake of Global Warming that we do this? The real issue here is that we pollute. Global Warming or no Global Warming, we still have to stop this practice. Global Warming is just the symptom that there's now something wrong with the earth. But behind it is the much larger issue of pollution and waste.
Reply:How do you know this is dead wrong (or any other statistic)?


or how many is wrong?


Why would you believe one egg-head over another?





my question to you is 'do you think global warming is fake?',


I don't.
Reply:I don't think it is fake at all!
Reply:no one on this earth today was here thousands of years ago, and just because we recognize odd weather doesnt mean its not normal. the earth is constantly changing, but people dont seem to understand that
Reply:Actually, there is a great deal of debate regarding glacial and icepack degredation globally. In some areas, there is no doubt that this is occurring. In others, glaciers are increasing and icepack is thickening (Greenland, Iceland and Antartica). As one responder has said, the problem is associating causes with the observed effects. And that is the real delima.





There is data that indicates that CO-2 levels are increasing and that this is THE main cause of global warming. But, the facts do no seem to support that the increase in CO-2 levels are anywhere near the levels that would impact global climate.





As a demonstration: The earths atmosphere could be viewed as a football field. Nitrogen is the most common and starting at the goal line, would take you to the 78 yard line. Oxygen is the next largest part of our atmosphere and would take you all the way to the 99 yard line. That leaves one yard, most of which is composed of the inert gas Argon which will bring you to within 3 1/2 inches of the goal line, about the thickness of the line. CO-2 comprises only 1 inch of the remaining distance. 1 inch in 100 yards.





Carbon dioxide has increased in the last 50 years right? Do you know how much in our scale described above? Just 3/8 of an inch in 100 yards. It may be a lot more CO-2 but it comprises only a tiny fraction of our atmosphere.





Does anyone really want to say that this fractional increase is what is driving the planet to warm globally? Can you really hang your hat on that factor as the factor causing global warming? I can't.





If the rise in CO-2 levels are a GLOBAL phenomenon, then it would be reasonable to assume that this would result in temperatures everywhere on the globe to be increaseing, correct? The fact is this is not the case. Some areas of the planet are in fact cooler than others, even areas that are quite close to each other on a global scale.





Example: Temperature recordings for the city of New York from the period 1822 to 2000 showed that temperatures increased approximately 5 degrees Fahrenheit in 150 years. Source:United State Historical Climatology Network.





Yet the city of Albany, NY for the period 1820 to 2000 show a decrease in termerature of 1/2 degree.





If warming is a Global situation, how can two geographical locations so close to each other experience such divergent temperature changes?





This is a time period of over 100 years in each case so this is NOT a matter of "local weather" differences. This is a matter of Climate which is the study of weather over long periods of time.





So we factor out the argument that the differences are due to local weather. How is this explained?





The fact is that no one knows how much present warming trends (fraction of a degree globally) are the result of natural phenomena or how much may be man made. NO ONE.





Our planet has experienced climate change gloabally over millenia. Warming periods, little ice ages, warming again, big ice ages.





Computer models predicting warming of the planet actually vary by as much as 400% which puts them all into the category of guesses. In fact the future cannot be assessed or predicted. You can only guess. An informed guess is still a guess.





I believe that we should do everything reasonable to protect our environment but at the same time I am convinced that we know practically nothing about how to do that without causing more damage in the process.





I have objectively observed that both sides of this debate are very prone to politicized science. I believe that the foundation funding for research on both sides by eclological groups and industry are very prone to being influenced by the providers of the funding. Pretty much, those that pay for the research get pretty much the results they "expect".





Lastly, the amount of dogmatic rhetoric expressed by people on this topic that is not supported by valid scientific proof makes this topic more one of an almost religious character. Much faith is placed in the "leaders" of the debate on both sides. And unfortunately very few of us actually go to the extensive effort to read, study and consider the science on BOTH sides of the debate BEFORE arriving at our conclusions about its validity.





This is unfortunate and can only lead to emotionally based responces that either overly restrict industry and commerce or that could ignore needed husbandry of our ecology.





Whenever public opinion is being shaped (by either side) to the point that one sides "guesses" are viewed as something that "everybody knows", we have lost our collective objectivity and have opened ourselves up to being manipulated as a society.





My study of this topic is not complete. I am continuing to learn more about it. My viewpoints today are different than they were 5 years ago and will be different 5 years from now.





I do not believe the theory of global warming should be a matter of dogma.





If you feel that your integrity is important to you, then study this debate from BOTH viewpoints and expose yourself to data sets from BOTH sides before becoming a prophet of doom about something that "everyone knows" when in fact almost NO ONE knows hardly anything about it beyond their own emotional beliefs (Faith).
Reply:Of course the ice is melting. This has been going on for thousands of years. But there is also new ice forming on areas formerly not ice packed. This whole idea is crazy and mind-boggling with all the money that is being spent on it. I think mankind would be better served by spending this money providing housing, food and security for less fortunate people.