Writers' Community!
Home News Business Science & Technology Life
Front Page Page Two Columnists Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login
Article Submission
We Need YOUR Articles!
We'll Promote Them for FREE!

Author Login

New Authors
Register Here


Now Serving 5,547 Authors
48,413 Quality Articles
& 6,883 Current Users Online!
Featured Authors
James Smith is a fan of:
Joel Hendon (4,797)
Most Recent
Global Warming Is Coming

Clear Skies No Aircraft Contrails in the future?

Using Rocks as CO2 Sponges

Protecting Wires, Cables and Pipes From Animals Without Harming Them

Why Dont They Recycle?

Green Living Tips

Why the Bees are Dying

It Is Not Easy Being Green

Hot Food News-Why are bees disappearing?

5 Renewable Energy Alternatives to Fossil Fuels

Home » Categories » Science & Technology » Environment » The Secret Scientific Debate On Global Warming » Printer Friendly

The Secret Scientific Debate On Global Warming

Rated 4 out of 5
No Reader Ratings Available ?
Rate It  /  View Comments  /  View All Articles submitted by James Smith
Submitted Tuesday, November 20, 2007
James Smith (899)

Log in to become a member of James Smith's Fan Club!


The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave a grim assessment of the impact of global climate change in a new report dated November 17, 2007. According to the Panel's latest report, the build-up of carbon dioxide on Earth already imperils islands, coastlines, and a fifth to two-thirds of the world's species.

The IPCC panel report says that global warming is "unequivocal". It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia's largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.

In the best case scenario, temperatures will keep rising from carbon already in the atmosphere, the report said. Climate change is here as witnessed by melting snow and glaciers, higher average temperatures, and rising sea levels. If unchecked, global warming will spread hunger and disease, put further stress on water resources, cause fiercer storms and more frequent droughts, and could drive up to 70 percent of plant and animal species to extinction.

"We have already committed the world to sea level rise," the panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said. But if the Greenland ice sheet melts, the scientists said, they could not predict by how many feet the seas will rise, drowning coastal cities. Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," he said, and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do. We are all in this together. We must work together."

"The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."

The world scientists that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon refers to are apparently members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the Nobel prize winning IPCC is a political body appointed by the U.N. Many of the 3,000 members of this panel are not scientists, but are political appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have in the past disputed the panel's findings and had their comments deleted from the reports. Several of these scientists have even asked to have their names removed from the panel's report. Their requests have been denied. Some scientists have actually had to sue the panel to have their names removed.

So do the world's scientists all agree and speak with one voice on the issue of global warming? Is global warming "unequivocal"? It does not look like those statements can be attributed to scientists connected with the IPCC. The talking point that all scientists speak with "one voice" on global warming has been heard in Al Gore's global warming presentations and is now being used in comments by the United Nations Secretary General.

Certainly the comments from early last week from John Coleman (founder of the Weather Channel) don't indicate a consensus of opinion on global warming. His comments went generally unreported by the mainstream press. Coleman stated: "It (global warming) is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. ... Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus. I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change."

Also consider the comments of Colorado State University's Hurricane expert Dr. William Gray: "The only inconvenient truth about global warming is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree. They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was." Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Then there are the opinions of highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado: Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions. "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change."

The skeptical opinions of scientists Coleman, Grey and Pielke are not isolated. In fact, 19,000 scientists have signed a petition that states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Global warming may well turn out to be the serious problem identified in the United Nations report. However, there is a ongoing debate in the scientific community about global warming and its effects. World scientists do not speak with "one voice" and do not all agree that long term global warming is "unequivocal". The fact that there is a concerted effort to keep the scientific debate on global warming a public secret should make us feel as uncomfortable as the findings on global warming in the latest United Nations Report.
 
 
James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses.  Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his wbsite at http://www.eworldvu.com
 





Reprint Rights

Log in to become a member of James Smith's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:


» left by James P Krehbiel (1,430)
James P Krehbiel
(1 year 9 days ago.)

Reader Rating: 3 out of 5
James,
In the 1990's there is was still considerable skepticism about global warming by the scientific community. At this point there is near unanimous scientific consensus among credentialed researchers regarding artificial warming as a significant phenomenon of danger. Take into account: The American Geophysical Union, The American Meterological Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The National Academy of Sciences - United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, China, and other nations. Consider the Climate Change Science Program, the George W. Bush coordinating agency which found "clear evidience of human conditions affecting climatic change." I find your premise unreasonable and lacking in scientific crediblility.
Respond to this comment
» left by James Smith (899) (1 year 9 days ago.)
James, Thanks for your comment on the article. I agree with you that the planet has warmed over the last several decades. However, there is substantial disagreement in the scientific community over whether the warming is artificial (man made or not). Many scientist contend that the earth is going through a warming cycle and is about to enter a cooling cycle. The point of the article was not to determine the answer to the question but to point out that there is an open debate in the scientific community. ABC has done an interesting video piece on this. You can access the youtube video after the article on my website at
Respond to this comment

» left by Ben Jones (5,423)
Ben Jones
(1 year 9 days ago.)

Reader Rating: 3 out of 5
In one breath you quote John Coleman who said "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives" to suggest that scientists who are warning of Global Warming are involved in a world wide conspiracy but then in the next breath you start espousing views from Dr William Gray who, introduced one of his latest papers with a quote from an ideologically rigorous politician, who has a vested interest in advocating for the regulatory interests of the fossil fuel industry. Sounds down right conspiratorial...

More than this, and to the point, Gray's papers are almost never submitted for peer review. This is the process where a scientific paper is submitted to peers in the scientific community before being published and is required before being submitted to credible and respected journals to ensure that they are well researched and based on scientific evidence (ie not unsubstantiated, floored or full of errors and miscalculations). The reason he does not submit for peer reviews is because Gray provides no evidence or researched data behind his arguments, he puts forth theories and then announces them as fact and he passes of junk science as gospel and proceeds to decry anyone who disagrees with him.

That's not science, that's blind dogma.

As for Roger Pielke Snr, it might be noteworthy to point out that he was on of the advisors for Bush until 2005. Can anyone say political motives?

Respond to this comment

» left by Joel Hendon (4,797)
Joel Hendon
(1 year 9 days ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
James, I would like to commend you for an article of facts and reason. You gave the information but you can depend upon those such as Al Gore (who invented the internet) to yell with the "Chicken Little" mindset. As you said, there is the 19,000 who have signed the petition denouncing the issue. Everything that Gore and his followers can say is global warming is a fact. We all know that. It takes no rocket scientist to understand it.

But this period of warming is not...NOT...the first or the worst warming trend that has been recorded. And there is also the fact that the rise in carbon monoxide in the atmosphere is a phenomenon that follows, not precedes, the rise in temperature. I have written on the same subject listed in my Searchwarp articles but not nearly as well written as yours. Many want to know why then are so many "scientists" insisting that the "sky is falling". It all boils down to lucrative grants being poured into the scientific establishments to look into it further. They will "milk" it as long as they can.
Respond to this comment

» left by robert melaccio sr (1 year 4 days ago.)
Reader Rating: 4 out of 5
Your talking about money here so be careful. Also, as Ebeneezer Scrooge once said "decrease the surplus population". The only thing is it could be the entire population. Oh well "money talks nobody walks", as the car dealers slogan used to say.Best wishes and keep writing, rtm
Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:

 

This Article has been viewed 267 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Tuesday, November 20, 2007
View other articles written by James Smith (899)


If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

Disclaimer:  All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.


Today's Most Popular
Limestone information and facts

Growing Plants with LEDs

Marble Information

How To Make Water From Air

Global Warming- How are Animals Affected by Global Warming

Centrifugal Chillers

Oxygen Controlled Extended Air Wastewater Treatment Plant

Polar Bears in Trouble - Endangered?

Global Warming True Or False?

Basic Marble Information and Facts

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Writers' Contests  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2008 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company