 Email |
 Print |
 Post Comment
|
Share |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Decades-long skepticism about global warming has nearly evaporated. Now, corporations and other entities are finally ready to handle the scorching issue of what to do about it:
| Related Stories |
| No More Denying It: Hurricane Katrina Confirms Global Warming I |
| Lean vs. Six Sigma…What’s Hotter? |
| No More Denying It: Hurricane Katrina Confirms Global Warming II |
When it comes to global warning, many organizations–from major corporations to religious groups–are finally facing the cold, hard facts. According to a June feature in USA Today, “after decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare” to tackle what is now a problem that they say cannot be denied.
According to energy technology expert James Dooley of the Battelle Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, the main issue is “really about how to deal with climate change, not whether it’s happening.” He observes that companies are now considering actions they can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and exploring new business opportunities related to dealing with the issue.
For example, General Electric has recently jumped on the bandwagon, announcing its plans to devote $1.5 billion a year to research conservation, pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases. Also embracing the need for action are politicians at the state and national level as well as religious groups who are calling climate change a “universal moral challenge” in a statement for the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, according to USA Today. While holdouts remain–for example, oil industry giant ExxonMobil still questions the implications of global warming–most are moving into the action phase.
And the facts back them up: a recent study spearheaded by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that the planet is capturing more energy from the sun than it’s releasing back into space due to carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases. In fact, the USA Today article reports that the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that global temperatures will increase by 2 to 10 degrees by 2100.
Burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil produces carbon dioxide. Currently, there are about 1 trillion tons of carbon from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. According to USA Today, “by the end of the century, atmospheric carbon projections range from 1.2 trillion tons if stringent corrective steps are taken to 2.8 trillion tons if little is done.”
So now comes the hard part: what to do about it. While there’s little agreement in this matter, one thing is clear to many–several measures are needed to address the issue. This multi-measure approach is reflected in the actions of the administration, which along with conducting tax incentive programs and climate research, 1) has embarked on a $1.7-billion hydrogen fuel-cell car initiative, 2) is pursuing a $49-million carbon-minimizing initiative, 3) is developing technologies such as “FutureGen,” a $1-billion project to build a coal-fired power plant with zero greenhouse gas emissions, and 4) is participating in the international ITER program to develop nuclear fusion as an energy source. In addition, it’s promoting voluntary participation. Fourteen trade groups, whose membership includes industrial, energy and transportation companies, have joined a program targeting an 18% cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2012.
Clearly, there is no silver bullet for this global challenge. Dooley of the Battelle Institute tells USA Today, “We need a whole series of ‘home runs’ and maybe even a couple of ‘grand slams’ to successfully address this problem. More efficient refrigerators, better and cheaper solar cells, hybrid automobiles, fuel cells, power plants that capture and store their (carbon dioxide) deep below the surface and nuclear power. They all have important roles to play.”
Source:
The Debate’s Over: Globe Is Warming
Dan Vergano
USA Today, June 12, 2005
www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm
**********************************************************************
For Mark Devlin’s take on this controversial USA Today story, check out…
Attention USA Today: Global Warming Debate Is Not Over
**********************************************************************
| Share | |
|
|
|
|
Follow Discussion
Recommend 
See More Comments-
Katrina C. ArabeJuly 6, 2005
Steve, thank you for your comment.
Just to clarify…these articles do not express the opinions of ThomasNet.com but summarize the trends and developments covered in other publications.
-
July 6, 2005
The last I heard from real science was that we are headed toward another ice age.
In the meantime, even if the planet were to experience some increased atmospheric CO2 and warm up a bit, wouldn’t that help to increase crop growth and thereby help to stave off starvation in third world countries? Perhaps a little more CO2 in the air would also help to keep the environazis from hyperventillating…?
-
Andres TrevinoJuly 6, 2005
“Climate Change” ??? … of course climate changes!! so we are supposed to do something about it? Climate has been changing from the beginning of time. The “global warming” religion is being pushed by the usual suspects. Just look at the list of the organizations that endorse it. Three points on the warming: (1) no proof that it is happening, (2) if it is happening, no proof that we are causing it and not a natural cycle (3) no proof that it would be bad.
By including an unchallanged article ThomasNet.com appears to endorse it.
-
Phil SarnackeJuly 6, 2005
The article provided a reasonable overview of the problem. Those who don’t believe the global warming theory are ignoring the mounting amount of data being collected by scientists around the world. Clearly we need to be more conservative in our use of fossil fuels. If you personally want to help plant some trees and buy fuel efficient vehicles.
-
July 6, 2005
Back in the 70′s we had the environmentalists complaining about global cooling. Now 30 years later we have global warming. I suspect that in 2030′s we will probably be back to global cooling again.
-
allen mJuly 6, 2005
I totally agree with the two previous postings. Global warming is a crock. You’ll find many times more scientists that disagree with global warming than you will who think green house gases are destroying the ozone. The case just doesn’t hold water.But it’s sure a good way to steel trillions of $’s from taxpayers through redicoulous taxation connected to false environmental issues. I am in total agreement with taking care of the earth God has loaned us but not through environmental lies and deceptions. I know it won’t happen but it would be nice if we could be upfront and honest on this issue but as long as people have hidden agendas honesty will not be on the agenda.
Allen -
Hill DeWolfeJuly 6, 2005
So, if what’s going on now is all our fault, and we have to fix it, whose fault was it a thousand years ago when it was warm enough for trees to grow in Greenland and people were farming the land there? One thing that it is very important to remember is that these days there is no such thing as an unbiased “scientist” EVERYBODY has a political agenda. Furthermore, they feel free to use their particular special knowledge (after all, everyone recognizes that doctors, physicists, climatologists and engineers have special knowledge) to fudge research so that it comes out the way they want and the rest of us will be easier to convince; they obviously know best, after all). Perhaps it was always that way, but now it has reached a fever pitch. To see such unvarnished schlock in a trade publication is beyond ridiculous; don’t waste my time with this stuff. If this is the best you can offer, stop putting opinion pieces into the publication. You are wasting our time and your money – presumably some EU sympathizer was actually paid to write what I just read. What are we going to do about the warming? There are two choices: we can prepare to pay $20.00 per gallon for gasoline (Brits are already paying about $7.00 a U.S. gallon) and $20,000 a year to heat and cool our homes – assuming that is allowed at all – or we can wait to see whether anyone can come up with an explanation of the current warming trend that can be replicated by someone else’s research and that fits in to all the other knowledge we have about the way the earth works. Using 150 years of temperature readings (which is what we have) to predict the next century’s temperatures is equivalent to trying to predict your son’s end-of-season Little League batting average by selecting one game and using that as the sole guideline. I mean, what if the kid struck out twice?
-
July 6, 2005
I cannot believe that Thomas has bought into this nutso stuff. There are plenty of well informed skeptics that don’t find this global warming thing to be anything but non-sense.
-
Mitch EdridgeJuly 6, 2005
Mt. Pinatubo in May 1994 exploded more ozone depleting gases than has been put out by all mankind since God created the earth. That includes all the gases produced and emitted by the United States of America. I wonder what party the writer of the article votes for?
God Bless America. -
Robert HarastaJuly 6, 2005
Since the profound results of global warming, such as rising sea levels and drastic changes in regional climates, cannot be reversed, it might be prudent to pay some heed to the global scientific communities consensus instead of hiding one’s head in the sand or making paranoid denials because it surpasses ones comprehension capability. What’s even worse is to accuse scientists of promoting some hidden political agenda. What is GE’s rationale behind investing 1.5 billion in research? I believe the doubters will eventually “warm-up” to the concept after it becomes politically and morally correct. In the meantime, get back to bible study!
-
Robert TulettJuly 6, 2005
To what other reason do we account for the accelerated melting of glaciers, rising (and warming) of the earths oceans, changing of migrating habits of many species of birds etc ??
Is this Gods actiomn?? -
Ron SaikowskiJuly 6, 2005
Your article is definitely slanted to the left. There are many research groups that are strictly funded by left wing organizations which realize how their “bread is buttered” and the “source of that butter.” If they don’t perform, they don’t get funded. For further information, please read Michael Crighton’s book, “State of Fear.”
The largest producer of greenhouse gases is the cattle industry. We, as organizms in the world, also produce sizable amounts of greenhouse gases from our bodies. Mother Nature has always polluted and has found ways to clean up the pollutants. Will someone please design a wastewater treatment facility for the wastes these left wingers are polutting us with!!
-
DON M RAEJuly 6, 2005
WHAT KIND OF LEFT WING WACKO ORGANIZATION ARE YOU. I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST A BUSINESS PUBLICATION. WHY ARE YOU PUTTING OUT SUCH UNFOUNDED LIBERAL PROPAGANDA. IS MICHAEL MOORE FUNDING YOU OR WHAT? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE CLIMATE IS THE PRODUCT OF A LOT OF RANDOM FACTORS OVER THE LONG TERM THINGS AVERAGE OUT. THESE WACKOS ARE USING SHORT TERM CYCLES TO ADVANCE THEIR ANTIAMERICAN AGENDA. WHY SHOULD WE AS A NATION APOL9GIZE TO THE WORLD FOR BEING THE MOST PROSPERIOUS NATION ON EARTH. AT LEAST WE ARE TILL THESE DO GOODER LIBERALS BRING US DOWN WHICH THEY ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO DO.
-
Wayne WJuly 6, 2005
ThomasNet just lost a lot of credibility with me over this issue. Climate change has happened for millenia, and much of the real radical climate change happened way before industrialization. Quoting carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is idiotic. Volcanoes produce ten times the carbon dioxide that man does. These idiots will have us spend trillions with no appreciable impact on climate change whatsoever. Some of these uneducated dufuses seem to think that the sun is still Aristotle’s “perfect fire”, and completely ignore the Solar Max 22 year cycle activity where energy ouput varies. As I recall, we sit on a thin lithosphere that floats on an incredibly hot mantle, whose convection forces move our continents. But no, that heat source doesn’t matter either. It is all man’s fault. I guess my Thermodynamics courses were a waste of time.
Of course, nobody is discussing that Global Warming is an anti-capitalist anti-US strategy of the hardened leftists and communists of the world. I’d like to see Greenpeace take their freakin’ boat to China, and try to force them into polution control. The Rainbow Warrior would be torpedoed and the crew jailed into hard labor.
If Global Warming is a result of man, it is because of the galactic hot gaseous emmissions coming out of the mouths of ultra-leftists and their psuedo-science clown collaborators.
-
Don BairJuly 6, 2005
Everyone really should read Michael Crichton’s book “State Of Fear”. Even though it’s a novel, the author made use of his scientific background to extensively research and document the global warming debate. This documentation is actually included as appendices in the book, and includes a huge bibliography. The result is a painless way to learn “the other side” of the global warming debate, and a springboard for your own global warming research if you’re so inclined.
Equally enlightening is the author’s point that the structure of the R&D world is now such that many scientists and institutions have a tendency to pig-pile onto the latest fad topic (global warming, embryonic stem cell research, etc), and that often the results of their research are heavily slanted in the direction that their grant source WANTS it to be. There is plenty of evidence that this is the case with much of the global warming research. The REALLY bad thing about this is that these results then influence public opinion, government policy, laws, industry, TRADE MAGAZINES.
As you can see from your reader’s responses, the global warming debate is NOT OVER!!!
-
Hampton TonkJuly 6, 2005
For another point of view read Michael Crichton’s novel, State of Fear, which is footnoted and has an extensive bibliography on this subject.
I would be wary of mere assertions that the earth is undergoing global warming without the footnoting, documentation and bibliography that this article in particular rather grossly lacks.
-
July 6, 2005
I cannot believe that Thomas has bought into this nutso stuff. There are plenty of well informed skeptics that don’t find this global warming thing to be anything but non-sense. GE is wisely getting into the Green Energy Business in a big way because several of the Green Energy techniques are beginning to make marginal economic sense; GE can probably make it make good economic sense.
-
Jon KonieckiJuly 6, 2005
I recall that the arguments for global warming are based on computer simulations. I have done hundreds of computer simulations, with a lot of them even corresponding to reality! What is missed on discussions of global warming is the temperature effect on the solubility constant of carbon dioxide in sea water. The total emmissions of green house gases from all biological activity is only a fraction of the daily influx and efflux of carbon dioxide into the earth’s atmosphere from that dissolved in the oceans. Greenhouse gas levels are the consequence, not the cause of global warming. Proposals to control industrial emmissions of greenhouse gases will have the same effect as trying to bail out the Atlantic ocean with a teaspoon.
-
RICK PJuly 6, 2005
I THINK IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY.
MOTOR VEHICLES SHOULD GET BETTER MILEAGE.
IN 1964 I HAD A VEHICLE WITH AN 8 CYLINDER STANDARD TRANSMISSION THAT GOT OVER 30 MILES PER GALLON WITHOUT CUTTING DOWN TO 4 CYLINDERS WHEN CRUISING.
I’M SURE THAT WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FAR EXCEED THAT MPG TODAY,
HOWEVER IF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES WERE TO GET TWICE THE FUEL ECONOMY THE FUEL INDUSTRY PROFITS WOULD BE REDUCED …….. AND WE DON’T THEM TO MAKE A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY …….. WE WANT THEM TO BE FILTHY RICH!!!!
I COULD GO ON FOR EVER, BUT LONG STORY SHORT …… STOP WORRING SO MUCH ABOUT THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR ……. AND START DOING WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!!
-
Bill M.July 6, 2005
Every article ever written on global warming references vehicles as a major cause, nearly none mentions buildings which lumped together (residential, industrial, office, etc.) consume over 90% of the world’s energy. The removal of forests (which consume CO2) have a more imediate impact on global CO2 accumulation than all of the feable polution controls industry brings about. And by the way, what is the CO2 and particulate (polution) output of one volcano, or a 100,000 acre forest fire. Ozone “holes” created by propellants from spray cans and refridgerants is another related position which must ignore facts about ozone produced by a lighting strike and the fact that lightning (globally) is a constant occurance.
We humans are an arrogant lot believing that we have “control” of such things as global warming. This is not to say we should not strive to be good stewards of the earth and conserve the resources it holds. It is simply to say that we are focused on the wrong reason, and our politicians (the most arrogant of humans) need to look at the whole picture before attempting to fix the “problem”.
This publication like all the rest could begin to assist by presenting a broader spectrum of the facts.
-
Jim DJuly 6, 2005
I am glad to see some people “mad as #!$# and not taking it anymore”.
A few inches in ocean depth? Every day it fluctuates many times this – twice. It is still possible to build below sea level.
A few degrees warmer should help the food production and my winter heating bill.
Isn’t the real answer nuke plants? All we have to do is convince the same people that do not like wind turbine generators because they kill a few birds. -
Mike WinklerJuly 6, 2005
Just a question.
How many ICE ages and warming up periods has the earth been through since the beginning of time? It is just like the 25 – 35 year drought cycle in the United States. 1931 – the Dust bowl, 1956 – severe drought, 1993 – severe drought. It is just that earth as a whole takes longer to heat and cool.
The following is an exerpt from http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov for data on July 2000
For the Globe:
Average global surface temperatures were also WARMER than normal in July 2000. The global land and ocean temperature was +0.59 F (+0.33 C) above the 1880-1999 long-term mean, the 7th warmest July on record and 0.65 F (0.36 C) COOLER than the record set in 1998. Land surface temperatures were +0.88 F (+0.49 C) above average while the global sea surface temperature was +0.47 F (+0.26 C) warmer than the long-term mean. The average land and ocean temperature anomaly for the year-to-date period was +0.74 F (+0.41 C), the fourth warmest January-July period on record.
Temperatures in the lower half of the atmosphere (lowest 8 km or 26,200 feet of the atmosphere) were COLDER than the 20 year (1979-1998) average. Satellite data provided by scientists at NASA and the Global Hydrology and Climate Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville indicate that the average temperature in the lower half of the atmosphere was -0.16 F (-0.09 C) below average in July. The average January through July temperature was also -0.16 F below average, the 9th coolest such period since 1979.
So, it appears that the temperatures will continue to fluctuate.
-
Paul MathesonJuly 6, 2005
Yes, temperatures fluctuate and will continue to do so.
Yes, there are a lot of skeptical scientists (it is our job to be skeptical) who doubt that global warming is occurring or question the extent to which some claim it is occurring.
Yes, some plants and organisms will fare better in a warmer clime but others will not.
Yes, green house gases come from many sources of which fossil fuel combustion products are a relatively small percentage.The global weather patterns are very complex, so a overall warming trend will result in abnormal weather patterns across the globe. Glaciers are retreating, the oceans are absorbing CO2 and becoming more acidic, hurricanes are larger and more frequent, winters are colder and last longer in some areas and warmer and shorter in others. Perhaps this is God’s way of reminding us of who is in charge and letting us know that we are damaging God’s Creation.
Michael Crichton’s book is just as factual and well researched as the film ‘The Day After Tomorrow’. Both were works of fiction that used facts as the starting point to make their stories more believeable, but both strayed from fact to tell their story.
What should concern us is that the human race leaves a large footprint on the planet. If we choose to ignore the global warming trends, which are proven by hard science, then we may leave a less inhabitable, more hostile planet to our next generations.
I, for one, would prefer a little hardship such as driving less and conserving resources than to leave a harsh, unfriendly planet to future generations. -
Paul FlemingJuly 6, 2005
Wow. I just finished Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. This state of fear just keeps perpetuating doesn’t it?
The earth has gotten much hotter and much cooler over history with no possible human interference. I remember a statistic that one volcanic eruption does more damage than a year of American CO2 release. To think that humans have so much control over the environment is beyond ridiculous and exhibits a great ignorance. If one is going to report on this topic, shouldn’t one actually do some kind of real research.
That being said, we have to be responsible stewards of our home. Conservation at least saves gas money and time at the pump. And we all have a responsibility to keep operations reasonably clean.
France has made over 50 nuclear power plants over the past 30 years, but the activists seem to ignore them. We should seriously look at the same…given we tend to make them better and safer (compare the performance of our USA vs French nuclear aircraft carriers). Auto industry should be able to deliver much better fuel economy…the hybrids are a great start…but I’m not paying an extra $3000 to save up to $1000 over the next five years (not to mention battery replacement down the line). Car costs need to be comparable.
Besides, as long as we promote innovation and not let it be stifled by industry or government the current combustion engines will be replaced by something better…hopefully sooner rather than later.
-
George WJuly 6, 2005
Or we could use the alternative forms of energy that we decided not to use at the turn of the century because their was no way they would line the pockets of the powers that be through monthly payments for energy use. How many billions of dollars are we up to in the who controls the oil war in the middle east? Who gives a crap as long as I’m comfortable and I got what I want right now… right… right!
-
BUDDY BOLLFRASSJuly 6, 2005
Everyone calm down! In the final analysis, Engineers will have to address our climate issues.
If CO2 does such an efficient job, why not save it for the global cool-off around the corner?By coring earth’s history from the ocean bottoms, we know that the earth has experienced a global warming period about every 90,000 years, that lasts about 10,000 years. We are nearing the end of a global warming period, where the temperatures are their warmest. Soon, we will be in for another 90,000 years of global norm, about 20 DEGF average cooler.
Does global warming exist? Yes, for the last 10,000 years.
Did the miniscule increase in CO2, 264 to 385 ppm this century, have any effect. Unlikely! The earth’s weather is about 90% a result of the sun’s activities.
Was the CO2 increase caused by mankind? Unlikely! With natural earth releases and ocean absorption, we can only guess at the causes.
If we capture CO2 from power production, should we store it for release when global cooling sets in for another 90,000 years? All power expenses will be increased for this burden.
Is CO2 capture and storage worth the investment? Not until science can demonstrate cause and effect. C. A. Bollfrass
-
Eric MomsenJuly 6, 2005
Did anyone denying global climate change read the article, or just lambast the subject line? Did you notice that the majority of US corporations (that stand to lose a lot of money because of climate change), including a giant such as GE, are acknowledging global climate change!
Before taking shots at the scientific evidence, please take a chance to check on the most recent conclusions. (Reading a fiction book and checking one month of meteorological data doesn’t count.)
Of course, the global climate does fluctuate with or without any help from human industry. But the consensus is that the effects of human activity have and continue to accelerate the normal changes. Every past ice age has been preceded by a period of global warming. ThomasNet is just passing on articles on current topics – in this case a review of the latest facts compiled by the USA Today.
-
Carl BartlettJuly 6, 2005
There are many solutions as to how we all can go about reducing our energy costs and in turn reducing the pollution that destoys our ozone. Our company sells window film (tint) and we have helped reduce energy costs for building owners on many occasions. The product will reduce air conditioning bills in the summer and retain heat from the furnace in the winter. A simple solution that pays for itself every time, whether there is global warming taking place or not!
-
Scott StewartJuly 6, 2005
Think of the earth as one body, each person a cell and what would be the blood? Crude oil is the life-blood of industry and as such, is comparable to water for the survival of the human species – at least given current technology. In keeping with my analogy, all organisms eventually die.
The same can be said for earth and all its inhabitants – right wing or left. However, most (and I say most in light of a few obvious exceptions) would not actively engage in an activity that will surely cause them to die sooner, rather then later. Absolving ourselves of all responsibility to the environment may or may not be a mistake, but I would rather be prudent for my kids and my kid’s kids, because there may be no cure for this disease. Answers will not come to those with their eyes and ears closed.
“The answers to today’s problems cannot be found with the thinking that gave us those problems in the first place” – Albert Einstein.
Crichton eat your heart out.
-
Katrina C. ArabeJuly 6, 2005
While I can’t reiterate enough that this article does not express the opinions of ThomasNet.com but is merely a summary of points covered in another publication, I’m happy to announce that our other blog writer, Mark Devlin, is currently working on a piece on his take on global warming.
And like many readers, he’s dubious about the whole thing.
So please check back for his piece on climate change in the next few days (ETA: Monday at the very latest).
In the meantime, keep the comments coming…
Katrina
-
Leonard H.July 6, 2005
Luckily for many of us, these same “nut jobs” are the scientists whose research and complex analytical models have made it possible to monitor and predict the likely path a dangerous tropical storm will follow. These kinds of apolitical, scientific studies save lives. We would be wise to keep an open mind to all sides of such a broad-reaching issue as global climate.
From the perspective of our culture’s history, we would also be well-advised to remember that the political and religious leaders of his time very nearly burned Nicolas Koppernick at the stake for having the heretical audacity to propose that the Earth orbited the Sun, and not vice-versa, (which was the “official truth” of his time). No doubt the names they had for him were much like “liberal leftist” or “whacko”. History is rife with such examples of intolerant and superstitious resistance to ideas later proved to be “ahead of their time”. -
Ron BakerJuly 6, 2005
This article is the biggest pile of bullsh*t I’ve read since I last read the New York Times or the Washington Post. I had to put on my chest waders just to finish this preposterous tripe. You use USA Today as your source – how pathetic! How dare you be complicit in the spreading of this outrageous lie. Grow up and do your own research and by the way, you might want to read a book based on something other than junk-science, such as “The Satanic Gases”. You can get a copy of the Cato Institute’s site.
-
Jay WebsterJuly 6, 2005
Wow…such rapidly raising temperature within the comments. It seems like all you guys here are enough to make this “global warming” happen.
Besides…since when did this industrial blog became a political battle groud? Express your political concerns to Bush – NOT someone who simply covers a topic!
-
R JamesJuly 6, 2005
For every person who used the words: liberal, tree hugging, anti-capitalistic, anti-American, agenda (etc., etc.). For any person who says that stripping the earth bare, pumping tons of crap into the atmosphere and putting toxic chemicals into everything we touch, taste and breath is okay; that we lil’ ol’ humans aren’t doing anything wrong or that doing what is right doesn’t make economic sense. I say you are ignorant and greedy people who are paying the price for staying with inefficient and environmentally irresponsible technology. If you want to complain about your profit margins and scream anti-American, do it the next time you go to Wal-Mart to buy something made in China. I’m not trying to argue the point of global warming, just that we should be good stewards of the planet and do what’s right. Who knows, doing what’s right could actually be profitable and Green technology might just be the jump start our economy needs. P.S. I’m a Republican and leave God out of it, he didn’t make this mess, we did.
-
Mike D.July 6, 2005
Actually, I think global warming is a fact. What I don’t agree with is the direness of the potential consequences. Climate has and does change regularly. The high middle ages and, eventually, the renaissance, the unique period of history that I can never spell correctly, were ushered in by a period of unusual warmth in Europe, one exceeding today, during which England was able to cultivate wine grapes and produced its own vintages.
That was followed by the Little Ice age, which only ended in the early 1800s. In Colonial America, for instance, New York Harbor regularly froze over in the winter except for a narrow rapidly moving channel that allowed for year-around shipping activity. And winter was the great season of movement in Europe, as all the major rivers froze over and people could move quickly and easily between cities on ice skates.
Any suggestion that anyone do something about global warming is going to smack of regulation and innovation, two things conservatives loath.
You can’t please idealogues except by going along with them, and people who don’t believe in global warming and the eventual consequences — and their will be even if, as I believe, they won’t be as dire as the more extreme envirnomental scientists make out — are just idealogues who aren’t impressed with little details like evidence.
-
Arthur A.July 6, 2005
Bravo for an interesting and (mostly) informed discussion on an important topic!
-
Dan MartinJuly 6, 2005
Kudos to the editors of ThomasNet for publishing this surprisingly controversial piece on global warming. I liked it because it provided facts rather than anecdotes, and cited studies to back up those facts. Those who disagree seem to know of studies of their own but don’t cite them. The debate would be better served if those who disagree would back up their position with facts rather than resorting to name calling.
-
July 6, 2005
Cycles in global warming and cooling are real. These changes have been rigotously documented over a period of 3000 years from historic records and from tree rings.
The BAD NEWS is that we do not yet know enough about why.
The reasons for hot and cold cycles have been debated over and over with the last big scientific debate covering about 50 years and ending shortly after after WWI with the publication of the revised calculations about variations in solar energy as caused by changing distances from the sun to earth, and the inclination of the earth surfaces to the sun.
These causes of variation in solar energy correlated very closely with global cycles prior to WWI. They neeed to be repeated for this cycle.Carbon dioxide vs global temperature, as measured in prehistoric ice cores, show that each warming cycle has been accompanied by a rise, and eventual fall, in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere for which there has been no attempt at explanation.
These large, and temporary, rises in carbon dioxide content in ice cores occurred long before man.
The current carbon dioxide levels are much higher than anything everindicated in ice cores but the warming is less, and often very much less, than during many of the historic periods where atmospheric carbon dioxide contents were much lower.The ‘Real Numbers” are interesting is that the annual carbon dioxide emissions from natural causes run above 190 billion tons/year while man caused contributions have been averaging only about 7 billion tons/year.
Normal variations of plus or minus 2.0 % in natural decay rates of vegetaion and other carbonaceous material form a range that exceeds the total contribution by man but this highly probable variation is totally ignored.
The best claimed reliability of the computer program used to correlate temperature rise with carbon dioxide is on the order of plus of minus 10 times that 2 % variation.
That fact makes it very difficultto conceive that the rises in carbon dioxide are due mainly to man.The converse is easier to demonstrate; thermodynamic considerations on the effect of temperature rise on the decay rate of natural carbonaceous material favor the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as being THE RESULT of global warming.
Now for the GOOD NEWS
Periods of high global temperatures in the last 3000 years have been the very best times of all for those unfortunates who live at the subsistance level: times of global warming have been the only times that these people have come anywhere near to having enough food.The absolute proof ot the relative abundance of food in times of global warming is that only in these warm periods has there neen enough food for an army to travel long distances while “living off the land.”
Clue; just look for historic figures labeled as “great”, as in “Alexander the Great”.
Each and every ruler labelled as “Great” ruled in times of global warming.
Future political fighting will be more fearce than ever: eacj of the truly ambitious politicians wants to be the person to be labelled as “Great” in this modern cycle.
Let the debate continue. -
July 6, 2005
If I were a betting man, I’d say the Earth is warming(or cooling), since the duration of those events far exceeds the periods of temperature inflection. At present, planet Earth is within a few degrees of the coldest it has ever been. The six+ billion year trend is toward cooling. Trends can be useful indicators of future conditions.
If you were approached with a proposition to sell your home, cash in your IRA/401(k), and liquidate all your assets and invest in a stock that appreciated 2% in the last 3 seconds (and I’m being generous about the 3-seconds), would you do it? Yet that is what “the sky is falling people” are asking us to do.
Taking the money idea one step further. You don’t receive grant money and get research funds in a university, foundation or government lab by reporting that everything is peachy keen. You must uncover crises, alarming developments and troubling trends-all resulting in further funds for continued investigation. Follow the money. With regard to GE, and others that will follow, they have ‘discovered’ a potential cash cow. You don’t have to believe in Santa Claus to sell toys. Ultimately who pays? Us, the final consumer-the end of the consumption chain.
Final thoughts. Have you noticed that everything associated with ‘global warming’ is negative? Be suspicious of that. Without much effort one could compose a list of wonderful advantages to a warming planet; far exceeding the disadvantages. If you really want to scare people; predict ‘global cooling’. Oh! Sorry! We did that 30-years ago.
-
Jesse B.July 6, 2005
Thank you for the informative article. When the Swiss are covering their glaciers in summer because they are shrinking, and ice floes at the South Pole are disappearing, I accept that there IS a problem, it is ONLY LOGICAL that despite the huge volume of the atmosphere, all the pollution and gases don’t just disappear, they build up, and it is worsened by waste and reduced forests and other green vegetation.
As an inventor who sincerely wants to help (with improved IC engines of easily 25% higher efficiency) it is sad that there is no interest and NO FUNDING for small inventors, but it all goes to the big corporations who are a large part of the reason for the problem! Also if we are to aid Africa, or other poor areas, why not the world also by paying their poor people directly to reforest their devastated areas, and help lock the carbon back up where it should be!!!
Much appreciated.
-
Steve CarrJuly 6, 2005
After reading through the diatribes aimed at all the left wing (not sure what that means when it comes to climate change), tree hugging (nothing wrong with finding a little value in nature other than how it can be exploited for profit), anti-capitalists (capitalism is a zero sum game folks, you know last man standing, the one who dies with the most toys, etc., so being anti-capitalism may not be a bad thing in the long run?), and anti-American (since when did it become a badge of patriotism to destroy, desecrate, and pollute the only world we have?), I can only say that a lot of folks need to understand that natural resources are not limitless, that we have a responsibility to all the inhabitants of this planet to treat it with as much care and compassion as we can, that a rise of a few degrees in the global temperature may not seem like much, but will probably spell disaster for many people in the third world, and that what we do today will live on after us. If you could make this planet a paradise, wouldn’t you? We need a larger vision, something that engages not only our minds, but also our hearts.
Thomasnet.com is not pandering to the left or the right; it’s merely reporting what’s been in the news for the last few weeks. You knee-jerk reactionary tantrums say more about your level of God (for those of you who profess to believe in him) would not want you to destroy the exquisite gem he created. Jesus (for those who profess Christians) would take exception to your greed and avarice, your wastefulness, and self-indulgence. Get over your infantile entitlement issues people, you don’t need what you think you need, you only want it because someone tells you, you do. You don’t need bigger houses, bigger cars, trucks, SUV’s, bigger burgers, or bigger waistlines. What you do need is a bigger conscience, more compassion, and a healthy dose of self – discipline (self-denial might be a better term). This isn’t just about global warming; it’s about how we’re evolving as a species and where we’re going. It’s not about the day after tomorrow, or next week or even next year, it’s about what will happen to us in a thousand, or ten thousand years. Broaden you vision, embrace a future that you’ll never be part of, act like the survival of the species is more important than your desire to own another SUV. Quit being so self-centered and selfish and give something back to the world that nurtures and supports you. In another comment on this page, someone said one of the main contributors to greenhouse gases was livestock (cows, steers, goats, sheep, chickens, etc.), my answer to that is they don’t breed themselves in such large numbers for their own good. They are breed, raised, and slaughtered by the billions to satisfy a hunger you have been deluded into thinking is a necessary part of existence by people who make lots of money from your ignorance. The easy fix is to stop eating so much meat. It’s healthier, and has less of a negative impact on the environment. Moreover, it’s a lot more compassionate (there’s that word again). In the end, nature doesn’t care whether you confirm or deny what will happen in the future. Many species before us (some better adapted to survival on the planet than we are) have gone down that long dark tunnel of extinction. So I ask you again, if you could make this planet a paradise (again), wouldn’t you? It’s up to us all to try. So why aren’t you trying? -
Ray EJuly 6, 2005
Unbelieveable BS! As a past advertizer with *Thomas, I thought these web blasts might have a solid foundation. Only to discover the author of this liberal fiction writes most of the articles for Industrial Market Trends which leads me to believe this poppycock is generated for presentation and not content. I say strike one to IMT for your liberal agenda. Strike two for non-qualified content writer. With the count at 0 & 2, lets see what you got. Im sure Katrina is a lovely and talented writer, worth her salt. My problem is IMT management and their business decisions.
-
Joey CarrollJuly 6, 2005
It’s interesting how how USA Today has become such a fantastic source of believabilty about anything,much less science,(they should stick to their “Did Prince Charles cheat on Di?” roots) and how fast Katrina and Thomas.net are running away from it after all the criticism.
-
Richard SmootJuly 6, 2005
In relatively recent historical times,we had the
Medieval Optimum. In Europe they were double
croping where they can’t now. Many tender crops
were grown 150 miles further north than now.
The Vikings settled Greenland and maintained
European style peasant economy raising small
grains-keeping sheep and ponys.
Then it got cold and their colony died.
We had what many refer to as The Little Ice Age.
We are still warming up from that.
The official IPCC warming figure for the last
century was 0.6 degree Centigrade.
This is the product of a lot of corrections(fudge
factors). Cities are heat islands. The effect
changes with time. Most long term records are
in or near cities. How accurate are the corrections? Most lab classes I took would put
the putative rise near to the range of experimental error you could expect.Richard Smoot
-
Jay WebsterJuly 7, 2005
Hmmm…I thought my comment earlier would help you people to realize not to be ticked off so easily for apparently no reason – we’ve got many other things to enjoy in life! The author did not take on any sides nor did she ask you to comply with anything! It’s only a summary. What I don’t understand is why you people keep on with all these insulting personal remarks? What if your child picks on this topic for a school project? Are you going to insult him/her the same way? Let’s be grown ups here (and I’m only a 23 yr old college student!).
To Ray E – 0/2 count? The author will hit a grand slam. How can you make such a comment based on this article? It appears to me that you are assuming all other articles are alike. You are really making an “ass out of u & me”! I saw tons of articles in their archive dating back to 2001 and some of them are very informative that I used as sources for my shool papers. Have you read every single one of them? If not, I suggest you take your word back.
To Joey Carroll – Tell that to USA Today! Funny, looks like you read them more than I do since you know their roots while I don’t. So are they a source of believability or not?
AGAIN people – stop the insults!
-
Steve CarrJuly 7, 2005
Kudos to Jay. Grow up and stop the name calling. It would seem to me that those of you who are so vehemently opposed to a rational discussion of the subject have your own agenda, perhaps based on an inability to empathize with your fellow travelers on spaceship Earth. Regardless of what you might think, we occupy a very small rock in a very hostile universe. Taking good care of our only home just makes good sense.
-
Bob PollardJuly 7, 2005
Al Gore found about 1,800 “scientists” to back his analysis of the UN global warming study. (Incidentally, his analysis was 180 degrees out of sync with the actual conclusions of the report). Since then approximately 20,000 independent scientists have rebuked his findings. Politics?
-
Craig LamiJuly 7, 2005
While we are all still clearly divided on global warming, there are still 2 things that cannot be ignored.
1. The air we breath is getting dirtier. Whether by man, nature, or God doesn’t matter. We still have to breath it.
2. We will run out of oil. I don’t really know when, but I have never heard anybody claim it was a renewable source of energy. What will we replace it with? -
Richard BastJuly 7, 2005
Good sources of unbiased information dealing with the climate and global warming are http://www.climatesearch.com and http://www.heartland.org.
-
Luis CavalloneJuly 7, 2005
Evidently there are many people that doubt that the human behaviour is a factor in global warming. Many reputable scientists (certainly not liberal, leftist ideologes) attest to the fact that humans have a lot to do with this tendency. There are also a number of scientists that feel that global warming is not human caused.
I want to ask a simple question: what will be the implications for our planet if, years from now, it is found that we, humans, have created a monster of a situation and it is too late to correct it? Wouldn’t it be a better approach to err on the safe side than err on the other side?
I think that implementing corrective steps to our pollution of the atmosphere as soon as possible will help sustain life as we know it in our battered planet. If we wait too much it may be too late. -
Katrina C. ArabeJuly 8, 2005
For Mark Devlin’s take on this controversial USA Today story, check out…
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2005/07/attention_usa_t.html
-
Ed PatrickJuly 8, 2005
Of course it’s warmer. That’s why they’re called the Ice Ages. They come and go on a 110,000 year cycle. Rest assured. In 55,000 years, Scotland will be under a thousand feet of pack ice.
Feel better?
The global insterest in “global alarming” has far more to do with politics than science.
Before we try to move the Earth on this fulcrum of urgency, how about getting the 24-hour weather forecast correct once in a while? (Oh, I know why. The errors of today are so small that their sum over a century is known to twelve decimal places!)
-
Jim SadlerJuly 8, 2005
This is a quote from an latimes.com editorial with some comments George Bush made at the G8 Summit this week:
“President Bush conceded Wednesday that global warming is a real environmental problem and that human-caused pollution worsens it. “Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer,” Bush told reporters in Denmark, “and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.”
Here is the link to the rest of the article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-warming7jul07,0,5951247.story
I’m amazed at how many people here have been using a work of fiction to back up their statements. Really folks, think about it. I’m as likely to believe that Michael Crichton was totally unbiased and fair in his FICTIONAL NOVEL as I am that the Weekly World News has photos of Elvis meeting with JFK.
-
Ed PatrickJuly 8, 2005
Venus has an atmosphere of nearly 100% carbon dioxide, and it’s hot. Mars has an atmosphere of mostly carbon dioxide, and it’s frozen.
We’re in the middle between these two planets, but with only 350 PARTS PER MILLION carbon dioxide (i.e., 0.00035% CO2). However, we’re ready to run like lemmings off a cliff and gut the economy of every industrialized nation for a lull in the Ice Age that would be here even if we were not.
Personally, I’m ready to get off the planet. That way those of us who think it’s supposed to be a cradle can leave it behind for those of you who think it’s supposed to be a tomb.
Three things to bet on before the Sun swells…
1. Your California oceanfront property is gone (along with California)
2. The Ice Age will return many times over
3. An asteroid with our name on it is going to make a large hole
These are bigger problems than anything Man can inflict on himself or the planet.
But that’s just an opinion.
-
rarnoJuly 8, 2005
USA Today is your scientific source — you must be kidding — more slanted opinion
-
Frank MartinoJuly 10, 2005
There has been a one degree increase in temperature in the last one hundred years.
One degree represents a normal climate cycle
that occurs in nature and does not represent
man made influence. The greenhouse gas and Koyoto Treaty are issues that are aadvanced by special interest groups who will make money if we swallow their garbage. -
Owen WJuly 12, 2005
Global warming??? who knows. We are looking at such a small segment of time, even if it were accurately recorded to a 1000 years from now it would still be such a small segement of time to base scientific reason on is almost absurd. But alias, here we are (myself included)… all chewing the fat on this subject. My concern, lies not with global warming, but certainly with one of the proposed solutions to it, which is our use of fossil fuels. We need to control them or at least assign some sort of priority to how they are used. We live on a planet with a very finite amount of oil, and contrary to how it is conveyed to the masses, we don’t just burn it in our automobiles. It is also a key ingredient in plastics and pharmaceuticals. Also plastics, contrary to another gross misconception, is not nearly a recyclable as say glass or steel, because most of it requires a high percentage of virgin material. I think we do need to control the use of fossil fuels, but not because the earth is warming up (which consequently means at some time it will also cool down), but because we use fossil fuels in many more ways than driving a nearly empty SUV 20 miles to pick up $20.00 worth or groceries. Personally I figure we should take another look at nuclear; and yes it does have pitfalls, but in our day and age, it looks like the lesser of two evils, not unlike our political system….
-
Michael MillsJuly 12, 2005
Oh my, oh my. What can we do about el nino?
If memory serves me right, the ocean changes by about 1 degree F. thru a season of el nino.
The hand-wringers for global warming are concerned about maybe a quarter of a degree. Okay, maybe a half a degree….. Over how many years?
And I’m not even a rocket scientist.
-
David D.July 12, 2005
Does anybody remember, back in third grade (1960 for me), when your teacher told you that the earth was moving closer to the sun by about an inch every year? I have never heard that fact (or theory) ever again. Here we are, 45 inches closer to the sun. Is it any wonder the earth is getting hotter?
Does anybody remember, back in sixth grade, when you teacher told you that the sun was cooling off? I have never heard that fact (or theory) ever again. Here we are, 42 years later. Is it any wonder the earth is getting cooler?
-
NickJuly 12, 2005
Maybe we should all stop floating pet theories and fav. sci-fi ‘story line premises’ and simply
- stop
- read
- read more
and be reasonable about what you chose to
react to and decide to continue learning about
what it all means.A good place to start reading (for earnest)
might be this article:February 21, 2005 Issue of Scientific American,
“How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?”The author takes a balanced approach to
intrepretting his research results and
what it might mean politically, economically,
globally and what it has meant to the
development of human society in the past.In fact, over the past 5,500 years global
warming (from agriculturally produced
methane and CO2) has not hurt us much at all; yet. That is apparently the historical
situation today (or at least up to the beginning
of the industrial revolution).As for one probable long term projection, we may also end up 200 years from now completely out-of-fuel and in the middle of a long overdue ice-age.
Pick your own devils, but I prefer reason.
-
Larry BogertJuly 12, 2005
Very interesting responses to an inoffensive and impartial article…
The subject of global warming has been discussed ad-infinitum for years now, with a gradual agreement that (1) it IS happening, and (2) man’s contribution to it, although not absolutely proven scientifically, needs to be studied and and dealt with. Indeed there are long-term warming and cooling cycles at work, as stated by many of the readers, but the short-term warming has been shown to be greater than the long-term cycles take into account. Thus man’s contribution is not insignicant and the discussion is valid.
There are two forces running counter to the choice made by most of the world about this issue: (1) corporations and individuals that make money from fossil fuels, whose short-term income would be damaged by curtailing use of these fuels; and (2) religious groups who keep putting the word God into the argument, and who feel it unnecessary for man to protect his quite finite environment.
The first force is starting to see the light – companies such as GE recognize, on a long-term basis, that survival of man is beneficial to survival of the corporation. I personally am very glad this is finally happening.
The second force is wielding its political muscle by arguing against most scientific evidence, including evolution, global cycles, and man’s contribution via industrialization to environmental changes. I am not very happy about this group.
The second force is also name-calling in lieu of discussion – that anyone who proposes reasonable study is “liberal”, “left-wing”, etc. (whatever those terms may actually mean). Since these are political terms, they have no place in scientific or technical discussion. Very curious that this should take place in a ThomasNet forum… I guess that the religious “nuts” (yes I can use that term as well) are a bit desperate.
Overall, this forum has some very diverse comments – some diatribes, some very reasoned discussion – and it’s been an interesting surprise in a technical forum.
-
July 12, 2005
Yes, the political consensus maybe that (global warming is real), but the real question is what is causing it? Blanket accusations that it is Americans driving SUV’s, is nothing but BS. More likely it is the lack of technology in backwards countries like China that is the biggest problem.
Our planets climate is in a constant state of change, we can no more stop that than we can stop the moon from orbiting our planet. With technology though, we may be able to help steer it.
Doomsday predictions are utter nonsense also. In fact some global warming may in deed be a good thing, longer growing seasons, more rain, and increase wind energy to be harvested. History has shown that global cooling is one of the worst things that could happen to us.
Man has proven ability to adapt very quickly, if some animals can’t, well maybe they are meant to go extinct. After all when was the last time you saw a Saber Tooth Tiger?
-
July 12, 2005
I think most would agree that it is important to know if a significant global warming trend is occurring, and if it is, what can and should be done about it. The evidence concerning this phenomenon has been accumulating over many years and is available for any fair-minded person to examine.
The opinions of scientists, while certainly not infallible, seem to me compelling, and worth serious consideration. Accusing those who express a reasoned opinion that differs from one’s own of having a political agenda seems rather biased and closed-minded.
Disagree with the experts, if you must. Name-calling and demonization of those calling attention to the issue, however, adds nothing constructive to the debate.
I agree with those who suggest erring, if we must, on the side of caution. To err in the other direction would seems rather risky and irresponsible, to say the least.
-
Ski DogJuly 13, 2005
Did you know all the people in the world will fit in a hole one mile square by one mile deep ( and not even fill it one third of the way up … do the math ) …. I doubt we have much long term affect on anything!
-
Allen KellyJuly 13, 2005
Haven’t we worn this article out yet? It’s pretty clear there are a lot of intelligent people, including the respondents in the commentary section, who have reasonable disputes with the man-caused theory of Global warming. Lets move on.
-
J BIEDERMANNJuly 13, 2005
GLOBAL WARMING CARRIES ABOUT AS MUCH SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS AS THE METHANE EMITTED FROM THE BOVINE HERDS WORLD WIDE, MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT CATALYTIC CONVERTERS ON OUR ANIMALS, AND HUMANS SHOULD CEASE EATING CHILI BEANS.
JB
-
Chris CraigieJuly 14, 2005
Global warming is a joke! THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN ANY WAY TO SUPPORT THIS! The theories are silly and any close scrutiny reveals the lies this foolishness is based on.
Yet today, the media is constantly bombarding us with it. What are they after?
During the 70′s, the media did the same thing with pollution but the “scare tactic” was the “new ice age”. The same pollution was going to create the new ice age in 20-50 years. Well, where is it? Are we dying under ice? No. Did the media ever apologize? Did they ever admit they were wrong? No. It just past into oblivion while the next “global crisis” took precedence.
How can they use the same argument 30 years later and claim it is going to cause hot conditions whereas earlier, it was going to cause ice? Doesn’t that sound silly?
The Greenhouse effect to any true scientist is known to be caused by water vapor from the oceans. Water vapor is responsible for 92% of it, but it is probably higher. Water vapor creates this nice blanket of warm air that keeps our climate warm and safe. All worldwide industry output of pollution can only amount to 8% of the Greenhouse effect. If that is the case, how is our little 8% going to change the 92% provided by the oceans? It is foolish. What is the media truly after? What are they trying to change and why?
It is a shame the industry is trying to appease the public through this misinformation. I guess public relations matters more than the truth! It is like advertising. We recycle. We care. We are environmentaly friendly. We are morons!! -
Phil GrimesJuly 17, 2005
*** Climate change is a fact. Temps go up, temps go down. Whoop-ti-do. Our job as humans is to deal with what we’re handed.
*** Global warming as a crisis is a myth, and in my opinion, an outright lie. Primarily it is a tool to eliminate all technology. If the most extreme environmentalists had their way, they would have the virus known as humanity removed from their beloved Earth.
*** When NOAA actually gets tomorrow’s forecast right, maybe I’ll believe that the wondrous “computer models” are more than just GIGO.
*** However, oil is a depleting resource, and it’s time we, as a world society, get in gear to develop economically viable alternative energy sources. They all have pros & cons, so there won’t be a “magic battery”, so to speak. Besides, the anti-chemical bunch will complain about about that one, too. The argument that “big oil” will stifle any such development is a crock. As a capitalistic entity, all they have to do is to figure out how to make money off the alternative energy.
*** One can be a reasonable environmentalist without drinking the global warming Kool-Aid. The extremists on the warming side are no better than those they rant about on the “no worries” side.
*** Capitalism is not the enemy; it is the key to the solution.
*** Finally, I am saddened by the fact that a formerly respected organization such as Thomas has chosen to parrot still-unproven theories as absolute truth. I guess it is just another example of the fact that politics has invaded everything, and that unbiased truth is, inded, an endangered species. (Sorry about the lack of paragraph structure. Maybe I should learn more HTML.)
-
July 17, 2005
Hey Folks,
What about the OZONE produced by lightening, where does it go? THis is a crock folks.TLC
-
John FitzgeraldJuly 18, 2005
Wow, you people are funny. The “lefties” are scared @#$%less that we are going to suffocate ourselves with CO2 and be parboiled in the ocean while the “righties” are just as afraid that the “lefties” may be correct. The real amusing part is the sophomoric vitriol that spews forth from both sides. Ther may be some science that shows a trend towords warming, however there really isn’t much we can do about it. The planet has gone through many changes already and will continue to evolve long after we are gone, so don’t sweat the small stuff. So try to enjoy yourselves and for Pete’s sake, lighten up on the politics. In the long run they are inconsequential as well.
-
PenneyJuly 18, 2005
To be prepared or not is more the question. From Tsunami to Tornados,record breaking snow and rain, losing beach front and forest. These all prove the weather is getting warmer.
To be prpared for the change is what we should worry about and that is why we discuss these things. -
Joe HarringtonJuly 28, 2005
Have a CO2 problem?? Plant a lot of trees. They take in CO2 and give off O2.
-
September 7, 2005
No More Denying It: Hurricane Katrina Confirms Global Warming I
According to an article in USA Today
-
October 24, 2005
Going Nuclear, Part II
A bit more generalization and reality. (OK. Maybe this really should have been Part I, a la Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill I and II
-
GenoApril 27, 2006
[...] If we don’t take responsibility for our own actions, then we should [screw over] the world for our families to come.
See Less Comments
|
||||
|
||||
|
Advertisement
 |
Browse IMT by Date
Browse IMT by Date
| Light Friday | Crib Sheet | Worth A Look |
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Engineering Salaries Rise
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Optimism among Industrial Manufacturers Rises
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Global Skills Gap Leaves 10 Million Manufacturing Jobs Vacant
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Global NC Software Market Grew in 2011
- Weekly Industry Crib Sheet: Obama’s New Task Force Highlights Importance of Natural Gas
| Also Featured in IMT |
| Expert’s Corner |
| How Food Companies Can Trim the Fat |
| The food industry is struggling to cope with market fluctuations. In this Expert’s Corner, Jonathan Daiker, a partner at CFO services firm the Interlochen Group, identifies strategies to stabilize costs and boost profits. |
| Sites We Like |
| Harvard Business Review |
| IEEE Spectrum |
| Lifehacker |
| Popular Science |
| Shopfloor |
 |
I don’t believe it for a second. The “Big Lie” about global warming is just another way for one political party to point the finger at the other. Fact is, there are just as many scientists and “experts”(people are called experts today when they are willing to talk about a certain subject) who have proof the globe is not warming, as those who say it is. Listen up. God is in control.
This is amazing. We can’t even enjoy an online publication dedicated to business without having liberal leftist political smears against American Industry thrown in our face. Is this a “trend” that Thomasnet is committed to?
The truth. There is nowhere enough proof or evidence with long range historical documentation for any of us to jump on the “Global Warming” bandwagon.
The problem. The people supporting this “theory” have another agenda that is anti-American in nature. It seeks to destroy our infrastructure from the inside out.
I hope this is not a “Trend” in your publication.