With all the wildfires burning in California, the Gorilla has to ask, “Is this a result of global warming or is it a result of a season of very dry weather?” One would think it is obvious, but it really is not. An environmental researcher from UCLA commented last night that although global warming would seem the “likely answer,” it may not actually be. He went on to say that you can’t “judge by one season of bad weather.” Of course this was his own professional opinion, but the Gorilla, being an analytical, but also common sense primate, believes in the old adage, “if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it probably is”…. well you get the point. It is believed that although the U.S. is avidly working to cut back it’s emissions (due, in part, to the efforts of good ole’ Al Gore) many other countries, including China and Japan are spewing more carbon monoxide into the atmosphere than ever before! If something isn’t done to regulate these countries emissions as well, what will become of the global environment? The Gorilla would love to hear what YOU think about this issue.
Oct 24
October 24th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
My thoughts on global warming are that it is often misconstrued. It is mostly a political issue, not a scientific one. If you look at the facts, you will find that the Northern Hemisphere is gradually warming, while the Southern Hemisphere is actually cooling slightly. This is likely related to heat given off largely in the vicinity of large urban centers. To eliminate this effect, you have to reduce the amount of heat released into the atmosphere, and therefore a reduction of the amount of heat generated is in order.
Personally, I believe that the amount of energy to feed and house the masses in urban centers causes quite a bit energy to be released into the nearby environment, thereby heating the nearby atmosphere, and could itself, be responsible for rising temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.
There has not been an adequate scientific case made that links carbon dioxide emmision to global warming. In fact, the release of the carbon dioxide may actually be improving things in the atmosphere, by lowering the incidence of cancer and the like (this is too long a discussion to carry on here, but could be expanded on if there is an interest. This is related to the properties of aerobic and anaerobic gases and the way that they spread. In fact, the carbon dioxide released in the Northern spreads to be evenly distributed across the planet, and so if it were the cause of global warming, it would heat the Northern and Southern Hemisphere’s equally.
None other than the scientist and author of Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton debunks the myth of global warming in a speech made in Washington DC, January 2005.
“Our approach to global warming exemplifies everything that is wrong with our approach to the environment. We are basing our decisions on speculation, not evidence. Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized-red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is absurd.”
The bottom line is that there is now a “common wisdom” that global warming is happening and that carbon dioxide is the root cause. Anyone who questions the “common wisdon” is ridiculed. Scientists don’t operate in this manner, but rather submit their theories or body of work for peer review. Other scientist review and either support or attack the work as flawed. In the case of global warming, that process has been reverses where anyone who suggests that “common wisdom” of global warming may not pass muster will in fact, be attacked.
For those interested in reading Crichton’s speech, I include the link here… http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html#
I hope everyone can decide for themselves whether perhaps some of the assumptions made by proponents of the global warming theory may perhaps be a bit off base. If you come up with a different conclusion, I would be interested in hearing about it, but please don’t just reiterate the “common wisdom”.
Best Wishes for all of you and our planet,
Mark
October 24th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
If one looks at the paleontological history there is little doubt that the warming and heating of the Earth is cyclical and not man-made. We are, in fact, coming out of a “Little Ice Age” that reached its nadir in the 16th or 17th century.
In addition there are excellent economic studies that debunk the need for panicky attempts to “do somethig about it.” See the work of Lonborg in Denmark and a recent article in the latest issue of National Review.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
climates, civilizations, economies come and they go… if theres one notion im long on, its that this ‘ol rock will still be here 100,000 years from now
October 25th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
The only man-made cause of the fires in California (I am a San Diego resident) is possible arson that set it off, and the close proximity of homes to brushy areas, which provided more fuel to the fire. The Santa Ana winds have been coming here several times a year forever - not because we suddenly warmed up our planet. The idea that “global warming” has anything to do with these fires is ludicrous - this area has had many big fires in the past and will have more in the future - no matter what we do in response to the phony “global warming” issue that has been raised by Mr. Gore and others.
October 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Single family homes are inefficient and, along with public schools, are failing in teaching children the things they need to know at a very early age.
Global warming is the logical result of the increase in human population and the burning of fossil fuels. We must reduce the world’s birthrate. A good rancher or farmer will not overgraze his rangeland and pastures. Why can’t world leaders see the need to encourage humans to reduce the birthrate so our planet will not become “overgrazed?”
Groups of families should join together to buy farmland and till it with horses and mules. We need to stop letting ourselves be enslaved in an economic system that increasingly burns more fossil fuel—and increasingly favors the wealthy due to increasing complexity of life. Think how socially and physically healthy the children would be if their brains and bodies were stimulated by the science and the work of agriculture—and if they were not exposed to commercial television many hours per day. The group of families should design and build a high rise building with common areas and classrooms and apartments so that the farmland could be preserved for organic agriculture. We need to feed ourselves and not import food. Safety of imported food is in doubt.
Commercial television is the ruination of young minds. Work on a farm would be their salvation and provide a scientific education provided there are many grandparents in the groups of families who can spend time with children.
Some members of the group would engage in small business and employ other members of the group.
October 27th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
The current “Global Warming” fad, that is being rammed down the throats of anyone who would listen, is a total farce. The answer is “Long Term Weather Cycle” as indicated by L A Gould. Al Gore? Oh Please, he is seeking to reap tons of money from spewing fear and doom-saying. He no more cares about the planet than I care about him.
Bud2007, Go ahead, try to take your message about population control to the countries where it needs to be heard: China, India, Africa and the like. I am sure they would give you a warm welcome. Your idea of everyone moving to the farm sounds a lot like the hippie commune movement of the sixtys. Yea, that sure worked well. You have not taken into account the most important factor in the failure of like experiments: Human Nature.
October 29th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I think the scientists have it all wrong. . . my wife says that the real reason for all this global warming is: All those baby boomers hitting menopause - man it’s all those hot flashes. I know she can heat up the entire room with just one - so think about it. . .
October 31st, 2007 at 4:00 am
Look it’s pretty simple to me, any scientific theory that needs as much hype as global warming to maintain traction must not be a very good one. If you tell a lie often enough people will start to believe it.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Unfortunately Amercians are about the only people in the world with large segments of the population unknowledgeable about global warming, largly due to past media concentrated efforts of Exxon Mobil and others(since desisted). You really have to become current and leave the sound bites behind. The idea that nothing is occuring and it is not being influenced by humankind is now endorsed by such left leaning luminaries as yes….George Bush.
Is one singular event such as the fires in California directly related to global warming…..probably not. It is a world wide phenomena of long term consequence, each singular event is no such indicator. The increase of the probability of events such as this occuring is a related indicator. In most models the Northeast due to the cessation of the Gulf flow may even become colder over time. So singular events or experience is no indicator. It is a global event of relative long term consideration, not a singular experience of one, limited to our own personal knowledge.
I would not invest in Exxon Mobil while they had their ongoing media campaign against global warming. Alas, now they have suspended the campaign and admitted it is a problem, and now their stock and earnings are tanking. What’s a mother to do……. Go Devon I guess.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
It is interesting to note that when Al Gore’s movie came out, he made the claim that ALL the scientists agreed that global warming was a fact, caused by man’s misuse of the planet. Now it seems there are more and more articles stating just the opposite. Personally, I’m in the second camp…however, what’s wrong with being a little bit more responsible by recycling, turning off lights we don’t need and being a bit kinder to Ma Nature? What could it hurt?
There is an interesting article in the 11/05/07 issue of Investor’s Business Daily Issues & Insights section, entitled “Bicycles & Bear Skins”, pg A18. It addresses the hysteria this issue has generated. Good grief Charlie Brown!!
November 5th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
There are many good reasons to reduce the quantity of fossil fuels that we burn. Global warming is just one of those reasons. To deny this is just being arrogant. Here’s two different viewpoints that I thought of recently that demostrate how much people are effecting the planet.
Look up how many millions of barrels of oil we burn per day. Compute the stoichiometry (reaction chemistry) of that oil burned in our atmosphere (assume complete combustion to simplify). Do a little more math to figure out what volume of gas this produces (engineers). Next, calculate the total volume of Earth’s atmosphere. Perhaps assume that most of our atmosphere exists below 150,000 ft (look it up, I forget what I used). Now, observe what portion of our atmosphere consists of “something that we burned” when compounded over a ten year period. In my opinion, the number is scary.
For a second demonstration. Go onto maps.google.com. Scan over the country…and other countries. Look at how much people have changed the land. We’ve changed the appeareance of a huge portion of the face of the earth. Again, to say that we’re not changing our atmosphere, land, and the thermal dynamics of our planet is arrogant. Oh yes, this “old rock” will still be here as “mantra” states above, but it’s going to be a different and messed up place.
November 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
This is a political issue aimed at creating guilt among US citizens, particularly affluent citizens, in an effort to increase funding and power for the “environmentalists” in what used to be the fringe left, but unfortunately has become the mainstream left. Who is against common sense conservation? No one, not even me as a Christian conservative. I would pose a couple of questions. First, to those attempting to provide the scientific explainations above, does the temperature of the Earth more closely correlate to CO2 in the atmosphere or to the temperature changes of the sun (the heat source)? Also does CO2 result in increased temperatures or is it the result of increased temperature? Basic physics answers this question by demostrating when a liquid is heated more gas forms. I will grant you CO2 in the atmosphere can help the Earth hold in heat through the greenhouse affect. Secondly, what is the purpose of crude oil if not to be used for energy? I am all for improved fuel economy and hybrid technology but give up trying to make me feel guily for driving my SUV, Pick-up, or boat. Not only are you wasting your time, it is my freedom of choice, which is the mantra of the left except when your choice is not theirs. Arrogance is required to believe man-made CO2 emisions out way natural CO2 emisions as a cause for environmental changes (simply look at all man-made emisions vs 1 eruption of Mt St. Helens). I acknowledge we do change the landscape but by and large as a means to provide better and healthier lives for people and generally striving to do it in a way to preserve the Earth. I will always be in the “love America first” crowd and remain proud the US does more good in this world than the remaining countries combined.
November 8th, 2007 at 6:48 am
For all of you who worship at the altar of Man Made Global Warming I have a question. I haven’t had it answered yet: How much total CO2 is there in the atmosphere? How much of it is man made?
Do I suspect that man influences the weather in different areas? Yep! Does man change climate? We are are far too insignificant. Does it make sense to implement sensible environmental protection projects and behaviors? Of course. Does it make sense to raise environmental protection to a religion? Apparently to some people…..