UPDATE

A reader pointed out that the "Great Global Warming Swindle" has had its share of controversy, and has been accused of faking some of its data.

In my further research I have found countervailing evidence regarding the net effects of oceans on the CO2 levels.  Particularly, the oceans have been said to be absorbing more CO2 than they emit -- not sure how one asseses the CO2 content of an ocean, or how accurately these things can be measured.  This may falsify one of the theories put forth in the film.  It may not.  Only one study was cited.

More strkingly, the global warming side has admitted that there is a lag in the CO2 changes AFTER temperature changes in ice core records.  This I did not expect. 

There must be another mechanism other than CO2 (and methane apparantly) that can warm the earth for centuries without raising the levels of these gases (water vapor is the earth's main "greenhouse gas," not CO2).  So, some of what is charged in the Swindle program is true.  The specific hypotheses may be wrong, but some of the observations are startling and fly in the face of the conventional wisdom.

This is a highly complex area, and more study is needed.   

What is NOT needed are more nuclear plants.

click here

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 170 comments) on Friday, April 20, 2007 at 5:54:14 PM
 

Al Gore and CO2

Mr John Doraemi,

Thank you for your commentary on carbon dioxide and temperature.
We obviously need a sane rational approach to life. For example, I subscribe to CSI-COP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims Of the Paranormal.
We all agree on one point; we must end our dependence on foreign oil. Whether using petroleum heats the planet is a matter of opinion but the root of the funding for Islamic terrorism is not.
What can we do? I am doing my part to make this world a better place when I leave. I have no children, and plan on one child and adoption. I believe I can make a difference adopting chilrdren from poor nations.
I eat meat sparingly and save resources, including petroleum, water and land.
Living a life of peace is helping me make a positive difference.

by Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 111 comments) on Friday, April 20, 2007 at 6:06:36 PM
 

What's thisabout oceans?

What's this gabble about Global Warming and OCEANS. Forests, trees, are obviously the other half of our lungs: take a deep breath in a forests and you can smell the ozone. Try that in water!

Scientists say a tree harbors carbon dioxide and provides oxygen. I am willing to listen. But

Save the forests and you will have oxygen, water and, under the canopy, shade and shelter and you can walk on it. It is said that Christ walked on water, but I can't, and I am the one of us interested in a livable climate. I am also the one I am interested in.

by emily horswill (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 64 comments) on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 4:41:51 AM
 

CO2 Levels start increasing in 1976

Coincidentally, CO2 levels would have begun to be exacerbated by the rise of the catalytic converter.    The catalytic converter converts the more toxic elements of exhaust to CO2.  At the time, CO2 was considered benign.  I cover some of this here at opednews in Political Science 101

Thanks,

aw

by ARichardWatson (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Saturday, April 21, 2007 at 7:49:34 PM
 

Nope

I can't participate on the level of Buckley and Doraemi, but common sense tells me that when cities are filled with SUV engines radiating heat, by blacktop parking lots, by megatons of emissions spewing every day, by heat from furnaces and air conditioners, that we are heating up the atmosphere. You called the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas weak science but I didn't see a counter theory. If it's a green house gas then if you make more you get more warming. The earth is a living system and when you poison that system you create problems, like the human body. I think we should heal the earth rather than bash Al Gore.

by Pleru (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Monday, April 23, 2007 at 8:21:38 AM
 

Response

"You called the idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas weak science but I didn't see a counter theory. If it's a green house gas then if you make more you get more warming."

The "weak science" was directed at a particular post.   It might surprise you to learn that the most prevalent and by far more effectual greenhouse gas is water vapor.  95% of greenhouse effect is water vapor.  The popular mythmakers would lead one to believe that 95% is CO2.  That is why I want to get to the bottom of these hysterical fights, and I do not trust the political leaders of any stripe on this or most any other issue.
 

"The earth is a living system and when you poison that system you create problems, like the human body."

 I have no problem with that.  The problem iswhen you call carbon dioxide a "poison" and when you create massive new international bureaucracies to put crippling taxes oneveryone who uses carbon (like people going to work, slaving away to feed their families every day).  The problem is greenlighting new nuclear power plants, and the problem is using the last of our valuable topsoil to grow ethanol while billions starve to death.  This is not a simple issue, and it has not shown to be directly caused by CO2 at all.  That is why I remain skeptical.  CO2 may be a factor, but it is certainly not the greatest factor, or the factor with the most impact.

I do not believe CO2 has caused a significant temperature rise (which is attributed solely to greenhouse gases in the popular press), and  the temperature may have naturally risen by some amount on its own.  There was a "little ice age" that just ended in the 1700s.  Certainly the optimal global temperature isn't in an "ice age" range.  These corrections have happened forever on this planet, without the effect of people burning fossil fuels.  Until the reasons are completely understood for temperature changes NOT caused by CO2 (as in the ice core record), then claiming such certainty about the global effects of CO2 seems dishonest and an overstretch, to me.

"I think we should heal the earth rather than bash Al Gore."

What exactly have you done to "heal the earth?"

Al Gore did nothing when the Clinton regime opened up large tracts of public forests to clearcutting in the 1990s.  He didn't just magically descend from heaven to tell us about Global Warming.

 I've been looking into the earth's temperature record to try and get a handle on exactly where we are.  It will scare the crap out of a lot of people if you do the same and go over to Wikipedia to see the last 5 million year's worth of temperature data.  It turns out this is one of the coolest periods on record and is still considered a glacial period (poles).  This will inevitably change.  During the time of the dinosaurs, for example, it was more than 21 deg. F hotter globally.  (Without people burning fossil fuels to take the blame.)

So if the temperature can fluctuate naturally in so great a range, we need to understand the real mechanism that can have such great effects.  

This is a scientific AND a POLITICAL issue (opportunity). It should be met with a high degree of skepticism and scrutiny.

By all means "heal the earth."  Stop polluting and wasting.  Walk and ride a bike.  Stop overbreeding. 
Develop  truly  alternative energies like solar, wind and tide.  But don't speak for me.  Don't assume I want a global carbon big brother scheme, and don't assume I accept whatever Al Gore says at face value.

by johndoraemi (17 articles, 12 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 170 comments) on Monday, April 23, 2007 at 7:06:11 PM