Is Global Warming Real?
With the revelation of the British hoax regarding global warming, an obvious question is "Do you think that anthropogenic global warming is real?" And here's my answer:
It's fairly obvious that human industrial activity does put more CO2 into the atmosphere than if we weren't engaging in it, and that this has some effect on the climate (since CO2 is a greenhouse gas). The real question is whether this effect is enough to be signficant when all the other factors affecting average planetary temperatures are considered.
It's also fairly obvious that the anthropogenic effect, right now, would have to be a marginal one. That is to say, the main factors driving planetary climate are Solar output, overall surface reflectivity, volcanically- and organically-emitted CO2 and dust, and water vapor, and the industrially-emitted CO2 would then have an effect on top of that.
The imbecile British atmospheric scientists who imagined themselves our intellectual betters and gatekeepers of the evidence are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is signficant anthropogenic global warming. It's fundamentally a question of physics, and of long-term meterological evidence.
And I don't think the question has yet been answered decisively.
Certainly, the Earth's climate has changed in the past (in this eon alone from a low during Snowball Earth to several highs in the Permian-Triassic, the Jurassic and the Paleocene) and will change in the future, in various directions. Certainly, there has been roughly two to two-and-a-half centuries of (moderate) warming, from the depth of the Little Ice Age to almost the present day.
What is far from obvious is whether or not the warming phase of the last couple of centuries is anthropogenic, and how far it will go even if it is anthropogenic.
One thing, though.
If one is worried about anthropogenic global warming, what one should do is push for the conversion of our power systems from chemical to non-chemical fuels. And, given existing technologies, that means nuclear fission (with ground-based solar as an auxiliary, and fuel cells for small motor vehicles). [And, over the century, eventually nuclear fusion (with space-based solar as an auxiliary)].
The essential non-seriousness of many in the global warming movement is shown by their rejection of atomic power.
If Mankind really is threatened by rising sea levels and shifting climate zones, to the point of endangering our global economy and perhaps civilization, the tiny hazard posed by nuclear waste dumps is irrelevant. It would be like fearing to repair a ship in danger of foundering for fear that the crew might suffer muscle strains from the effort.
It is not possible to take global warming seriously and still be opposed to atomic energy.
It's fairly obvious that human industrial activity does put more CO2 into the atmosphere than if we weren't engaging in it, and that this has some effect on the climate (since CO2 is a greenhouse gas). The real question is whether this effect is enough to be signficant when all the other factors affecting average planetary temperatures are considered.
It's also fairly obvious that the anthropogenic effect, right now, would have to be a marginal one. That is to say, the main factors driving planetary climate are Solar output, overall surface reflectivity, volcanically- and organically-emitted CO2 and dust, and water vapor, and the industrially-emitted CO2 would then have an effect on top of that.
The imbecile British atmospheric scientists who imagined themselves our intellectual betters and gatekeepers of the evidence are irrelevant to the question of whether or not there is signficant anthropogenic global warming. It's fundamentally a question of physics, and of long-term meterological evidence.
And I don't think the question has yet been answered decisively.
Certainly, the Earth's climate has changed in the past (in this eon alone from a low during Snowball Earth to several highs in the Permian-Triassic, the Jurassic and the Paleocene) and will change in the future, in various directions. Certainly, there has been roughly two to two-and-a-half centuries of (moderate) warming, from the depth of the Little Ice Age to almost the present day.
What is far from obvious is whether or not the warming phase of the last couple of centuries is anthropogenic, and how far it will go even if it is anthropogenic.
One thing, though.
If one is worried about anthropogenic global warming, what one should do is push for the conversion of our power systems from chemical to non-chemical fuels. And, given existing technologies, that means nuclear fission (with ground-based solar as an auxiliary, and fuel cells for small motor vehicles). [And, over the century, eventually nuclear fusion (with space-based solar as an auxiliary)].
The essential non-seriousness of many in the global warming movement is shown by their rejection of atomic power.
If Mankind really is threatened by rising sea levels and shifting climate zones, to the point of endangering our global economy and perhaps civilization, the tiny hazard posed by nuclear waste dumps is irrelevant. It would be like fearing to repair a ship in danger of foundering for fear that the crew might suffer muscle strains from the effort.
It is not possible to take global warming seriously and still be opposed to atomic energy.