EWING: 'Crisis' of global warming is fiction

Kenneth Ewing

Published September 6, 2008 at 6 a.m.

Text size

More Speakout

Comments

September 6, 2008

6:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

Amen.
September 6, 2008

8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Wow Ken that's quite a rant!

"Granted there is some global warming going on, but it’s not caused by man." How do you know this Ken? Are you a scientist, and do you read scientific journals? I am and I do. In the last few years, I have read reports of government and university sponsored research into Global Warming. I have read hundreds of scientific papers and journals on the subject. There exists almost no disagreement that global warming is occurring. There is still some disagreement in the international scientific community as to the degree to which man is either initiating Global Warming or accelerating a natural process. The debate is mostly between the we are affecting it a little to the we are affecting it a lot factions.

"A vast segment of the scientific community (a majority) has taken an opposing position, and strongly disagrees with the theory that global warming is caused by man." Again, Ken, how do you know this? Internationally, there are tens of thousands of climatologists, glaciologists, botanists and zoologists studying this phenomena. Do you think anyone has polled all of them recently? The only thing I have seen is the grossly flawed petition project that got 30,000 purported "scientists" to sign a petition that said GW wasn't occurring at all. It took the man 10 years to acquire the signatures. Among the signers: dentists, dead guys, electricians and computer nerds. The majority of signatories were engineers from the extraction industries!

There has been a great deal of false research put out by industry funded "research groups" that serve up cherry picked, non peer reviewed data sets and analysis. One way you can tell: they deliver their "findings" in press releases and on internet websites and not through traditional scientific circles where their results would be dissected and debunked. One such group is the Bob Marshall Institute which has produced flawed research reports for both The cigarette industry and the extraction industries.

So Ken, you are welcome to be a skeptic, every scientist I have ever known is a professional skeptic. That said, you should at least base your comments on legitimate research and not a bunch of anecdotal and industry funded misinformation. They are hoping that you and people like Mike In Hartzel are gullible enough to be believe them. Please do all of us a favor and think for yourself. Check out some legitimate scientific journals on this subject.
September 6, 2008

8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>Thirty or forty years ago, I recall the most horrendous calamity on the horizon was Global Cooling, and the eventual change of the earth’s magnetic poles, due to massive increases in, and new locations of---ice.<<

Ice has no effect on the earth's magnetic poles and no scientist ever said anything like that. Sounds like Mr. Ewing has a faulty memory and an abysmal understanding of basic science.
September 6, 2008

8:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

For some user friendly scientific sites on the subject, consider examining:

http://ucsusa.org/

http://climatechangeeducation.org/sci...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content...
September 6, 2008

11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

1104 writes:

A well done summary from the scientific mind of drug riddled Rush Limbaugh
September 6, 2008

10:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Greanleaf,

I recognize your scientific background. I have none. On another thread I sent you the link below asking for your comments, but with my teflon brain cells I sometimes have trouble getting back to other threads I have posted upon.

John Colman, founder of the Weather Channel wrote this column...http://www.kusi.com/weather/...

I would be genuinely interested in your comments and thoughts.
September 7, 2008

7:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

JRBeck writes:

Look at the data. Co2 emissions have steadily increased over the past 40 years. (source: http://climate.weather.com/science/cl... ) but, for the past 10 years, global temperatures have been cooler than that of 1998. To explain this, the “believers” will cite numerous sources attempting to debunk this simple fact. One good example, http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21... ,does a tap dance that would make Fred Astaires’ head spin. These sights are sprinkled heavily with terms “as a whole” “ because of this“ “ because of that“ “due to this“ “due to that“ “the reason for this” “the reason for that” . Unfortunately, I fear, many scientists can’t see the forest through the trees and/or, to save face, are scrambling like cockroaches to explain their unconfirmed theories.

Two simple facts cannot be denied.

#1. Co2 has been increasing every year since 1998.

#2. Every year since 1998 has been cooler.

But, alas, the dance continues.
September 7, 2008

8:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Good morning daRock,

Here is the response I wrote on the other global warming forum yesterday. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your concern and interest.
daRock,

Scientists and non scientists alike are struggling with the Global Warming issue. 10 years ago I felt that man-caused warming was overblown, as many scientists still did. The scientific evidence piled up and piled up until most of us who were skeptical not only became believers but became alarmed as well. The changes are coming quickly as I can testify from my field of botany and horticulture. Plants that routinely failed to overwinter in the front range are becoming perennial. Plants are blooming a week to 10 days earlier than their historic average year after year and earlier all the time! Our growing season is correspondingly longer. Some of this sounds good but it presents many challenges for species that have to adapt rapidly.

Even if you can't accept that CO2 released by man in wholesale quantities in the atmosphere is the major cause of GW, can you at least accept that man's contribution may at least be enough to provide a tipping point or to accelerate a natural process that otherwise may have been less precipitous?

As for John Coleman: People accuse Al Gore (somewhat rightfully I might add) of being a shameless self-promoter exploiting a story, well I contend that the founder of the Weather Channel wrote the book on those subjects. His bachelor's degree in 1957 wasn't even in meteorology ( it was journalism). The man isn't even a scientist. Even if he was a meteorologist, a 50 year old degree in an applied science wouldn't make him a credible critic of theoretical sciences such as climatology and glaciology in the modern age of computer models and rapidly evolving science.

"He started the Weather Channel as a way to sell ad time and keep his tired comedy act going- but was later FIRED FROM THE WEATHER CHANNEL! THE CHANNEL HE HELPED START! Because the Weather Channel was sick of his antics.

Then John Coleman got hired by Chicago's Channel 5, because they thought it would boost ratings (it didn't) and they fired him after 6 months.

"John Coleman is "famous" for popularizing the term "thorms" and "thowers" to represent thunderstorms and thundershowers."
September 7, 2008

8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

JRBeck,

The links you posted cite The NASA studies from 2005. The NASA climatologists and those of NCAR and other government agencies all point to 1998 having the strongest El Nino of the last century. In short, that year was an anomaly. True scientists don't separate one year from a data set of a hundred years and say: "aha!" . What is important is the trend, which continues upward, not downward as you imply. In fact, NASA says that 2005 was a warmer year than 1998. If in doubt, go to the source and cut past the pre-digested and sometimes manipulated stuff you commonly find on the web.

Here is what NASA says about the 1998 anomaly and The steadily increasing temperature trend that indicates that the world is still actively warming. :

"http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/envi...

Always try to go to the source, otherwise its too easy to find cherry picked and manipulated data presented by people who have agendas on both sides of the issue. Science is science and propaganda is propaganda. The two are not one and the same.
September 7, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

JRBeck -

>>for the past 10 years, global temperatures have been cooler than that of 1998. To explain this, the "believers" will cite numerous sources attempting to debunk this simple fact. One good example, http://climateprogress.org/2008/08/21... does a tap dance that would make Fred Astaires’ head spin. These sights are sprinkled heavily with terms "as a whole" "because of this" "because of that" "due to this" "due to that" "the reason for this" "the reason for that"<<

The climateprogress.org link refers to an article at The New Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/c...

What is wrong with the explanation as to why GISS differs from Hadley? Did you miss the part about the Hadley data not including the Arctic Ocean while GISS does (and the Arctic has the most warming)? Did you miss the part that says the GISS data do not show global temps have been cooler since 1998? Please explain why these are somehow not relevant facts.

>>Two simple facts cannot be denied.

#1. Co2 has been increasing every year since 1998.

#2. Every year since 1998 has been cooler.<<

Since the GISS data has 2005 warmer than 1998 and 2007 tied with 1998
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
and the Hadley data do not show each year since 1998 progressively cooler, your "fact" #2 is inaccurate if not erroneous.

GISS data is available here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...

Hadley data and file formats are available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/tem...
September 7, 2008

10:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

JRBeck writes:

Greenleaf,

You not only didn’t read my source correctly nor did you read my post correctly.

#1. My source referenced a more recent nasa report, created June 2008, under the first paragraph . It’s YOUR Nasa source that is a 2005 study, created Jan. 2006. So as to keep you more current, here is the more current source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ .

#2. Even still, you missed the whole point of my post. Quoting your outdated Nasa source. “Some other research groups (rank)” An example of real propaganda for you.

“Some other research groups that study climate change rank 2005 as the second warmest year, based on comparisons through November. The primary difference among the analyses, according to the NASA scientists, is the inclusion of the Arctic in the NASA analysis. Although there are few weather stations in the Arctic, the available data indicate that 2005 was unusually warm in the Arctic“.

Humm… talk about cherry picking! Nothing like changing the rules and measuring temperatures where an area is “unusually warm” the most to tilt the numbers. If this is to be included, you need to measure temps that are getting unusually cooler the most and throw them into the mix. No…. that wouldn’t be “scientific“!
September 7, 2008

11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

daRock - I'll make a few comments about Coleman's article.

Part 1

First off, Coleman write Al Gore this and Al Gore that. I really don't care what Gore says, but what the science says and Gore isn't a scientist by any means.
Second, if Coleman's rebuttal is on solid scientific grounds, why doesn't he publish in a major science journal such as Science or Nature
rather than a television stations web site? I suspect it's because he knows his rebuttal wouldn't stand up
to critiques from those who most familiar with the science.

"According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees."

Which is inaccurate and misleading. What Gore said was if all of the ice covering Greenland were to melt, sea levels
would rise about 20 feet. That is an accurate statement. If all the ice covering Antarctic melted, sea levels would rise much more.

"But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces."
and
"Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature..."
and
"He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns."

These statements indicate that Coleman doesn't even understand the basic concept. Warming due to greenhouse gases isn't expected
to "overwhelm" anything, it is >>in addition to<< natural conditions - a very important distinction.
September 7, 2008

11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

daRock Part 2

"Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998..."

Actually, solar activity peaked and even started to decline in the early-mid 1980s while temperatures continued to rise, so the solar activity connections fails as an explanation.

"Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years."

No. There was an anomalous spike in 1998.

"Of those 100,000 [molecules] only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t."

He's correct about the CO2 concentrations, but fails to consider that the temperature changes themselves are really pretty darn small - a couple degrees in a hundred years is not a huge change by any means.

"Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period."

Actually, we are at the very tail end of the latest interglacial period. What's interesting is that AGW theory is part of the overall theory that explains the ice age cycles and the pattern of each cycle, and greenhouse gasses are a major player in that theory. If AGW theory is grossly wrong, then the theory explaining the ice ages is just as incorrect but you don't hear Coleman telling us what's wrong with the theory explaining the ice ages, especially considering that it clearly rules out solar activity as having any major impact.
September 7, 2008

11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

JRBeck
>>Humm... talk about cherry picking! Nothing like changing the rules and measuring temperatures where an area is "unusually warm" the most to tilt the numbers. If this is to be included, you need to measure temps that are getting unusually cooler the most and throw them into the mix<<

What makes you think the GISS data excludes "temps that are getting unusually cooler" when in fact it ***DOES*** include areas that are getting colder. It covers the same areas the Hadley data does as well as areas that the Hadley data does not. Simply put, the GISS data has more complete coverage than the Hadley data does.
September 7, 2008

11:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Thanks for pointing out the updated NASA site. I am not a climatologist ( but I suspect that you aren't either). However, I see nothing in the updated report and analysis that contradicts the previous report. According to the latest report, the Earth's mean temperature is still increasing. Are you saying that some of the most highly regarded of the world's scientists are lying (cherry picking)? Why would some of the best scientists in the world who, I might add, are operating in an agency of the government administrated by George Bush of all people, want to mislead the world on Global Warming in favor of the concept? As for your Arctic observation, an average is an average. 2005 and 2007 were still the among the warmest years on record even with the addition of the much cooler than average(world average) temperature data from the Arctic. If anything, they should lower the average world temperatures for previous years and tend to support the skeptic's argument. Obviously they don't do that.

Here in an excerpt from the 2008 report you cited, it is part of the analysis of data from 2007.
"...climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

Still from animation showing the temperature anomaly for 2007. Image at right: This still from the animation presented shows the temperature anomalies that were present during 2007. Credit: NASA. View Temperature Anomaly Video (MPG) or "Earth's Temperature" Web short.

"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature," said Hansen. "Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the time of the next El Nino, because of the background warming trend attributable to continuing increases of greenhouse gases."

The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. "

So, I guess that I don't see how the updated analysis changes the NASA Goddard Institute's assertion that Global Warming is continuing apace.
September 7, 2008

6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

stranger40 writes:

Anyone that honestly thinks nearly 7 billion humans along with their various forms of energy consuming and polluting machinery have no affect on the planet Earth, must not be from this planet!

Come on people, the Earth is a closed system just like a fish tank - it is only a matter of time before there are too many "fish" in the tank.
September 7, 2008

6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Nonein2008 writes:

Other agendas are beginning to emerge:
Speaking at a meeting organised by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), urges people to eat less meat to fight global climate change. UN figures suggest that meat production puts more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than transport. "The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emissions from meat production account for about 18% of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions," he told BBC News. Transport, by contrast, accounts for just 13% of humankind's greenhouse gas footprint, according to the IPCC.

CIWF's ambassador Joyce D'Silva states: "I would like governments to set targets for reduction in meat production and consumption," she said. "The NFU is committed to ensuring farming is part of the solution to climate change, rather than being part of the problem".
September 7, 2008

8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

daRock writes:

Greenleaf and CL,
Thank you for your letters and analysis of Colman's article. His article made sense to me, but as I stated, I am not a scientist. I also know little about his educational background, scientific credentials or where else he contributes.

I do believe the climate is changing, but am not convinced the answers are in, as to why. And not prepared to totally jump on the carbon-offset, man is doing it bandwagon. My mind is still very open though.

I will give a personal experience that occurred less than 2 weeks ago.

I had lunch with a good friend of mine is a world renowned veterinarian and has two science PhD's. He personally goes to Hudson Bay each of the last 3 years and tranquilizes polar bears to implant radio transmitters into them. This is one of 3 large polar bear herds in the world (others are in Siberia and Alaska). This herd is getting measurably smaller, by as much as 15% to 20% per year. They do not hibernate and eat berries during the summer and seals in the winter. They can fast for about 4-5 months in the summer before they need to feast. There are 3 huge fresh water rivers that converge into Hudson Bay (salt water). The fresh water freezes before the salt water does, creating an ice 'runway' out into the bay that the bears can run down and catch their food.
Less than 10 years ago the fresh water runway would form by early September but this year it will not form until mid to late October. On the other end, it used to stay frozen until June but is now melting by mid April. The bears are stressed by now having only 6 months to eat as opposed to 8-9 before. The polar bears cannot adapt this quickly and he believes we are losing them.

He does the same thing for a month each year in Antarctica putting transmitters into penguins and tracking them as long as the transmitters last, about 2 years.

He tells me the migration habits of the penguins are changing radically. He also told me that there are now grasses growing in Antarctica on land that was recently too frozen to sustain plant life.

He also told me that he believes that man contributes more to trash in the ocean, impacting ocean life than they do to the global climate change. In his opinion because the bulk of CO2 emissions comes from the ocean and not from land, the biggest change man could make to benefit the earth is to stop raping the oceans of life (like the Japanese and Chinese do) and to reduce the pollution being dumped there. The climate changes could be more to the altering of the ocean eco systems than what is going on above the surface, ie carbon emissions on land.

Thanks again for your insite and time to post.
September 8, 2008

8:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

daRock,

Thanks for sharing your friend's experiences with the polar bears and penguins. I am afraid that we will be hearing more of these stories in the years to come and some will be much closer to home. I think that until people experience the decline and loss of species in their own backyards that it is too easy to dismiss and ignore. The real tragedy is that by the time many people are aware of the problem, it may already be too late. Thanks again.
September 8, 2008

9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

The man isn't even a scientist. Even if he was a meteorologist, a 50 year old degree in an applied science wouldn't make him a credible critic of theoretical sciences such as climatology and glaciology in the modern age of computer models and rapidly evolving science.

And Al Gore is???

Nuff Said!
September 8, 2008

9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gary,

I'm not a defender of Gore by any means, but he isn't attacking scientific analysis and theory, Coleman is. Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist, Coleman does.

As you say endlessly: "Nuff said!
September 8, 2008

10:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

CL writes:

>>And Al Gore is???<<

No Gore isn't, which just shows that when Coleman attempts to rebutt Gore, Coleman isn't rebutting the science of AGW. That also goes to the point I made to daRock as to why Coleman publishes his rebuttal on a TV station's web site and not in a science journal.

If Coleman's arguements are so solid, why doesn't he present them to the science community??
September 8, 2008

2:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

Green, thanks for the explanation on our messy maples.

By the way, while I don't have the official weather station, the following is the NewPortPlum report from our backyard.

2003 3/19 36" snow
2004 4/9 full flower 4/10 snow
2005 4/17 full flower
2006 4/18 full flower
2007 3/29 big snow 4/5 full flower 4/8 snow
2008 4/16 snow 4/29 full flower 5/1 snow

I am not sure what to make of all of this but they continue to absorb our share of CO2.
September 8, 2008

3:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jackson,

Amurs are messy aren't they? I have one client who has 20 of them that he likes to have pruned as trees. Its known as "job security".

I find your Newport data to be interesting as it seems to contradict some of the national data for cherries, lilacs and certain other plant varieties. Of course that uses data from hundreds of plants spread across the country. The larger the numbers the less skewed the data is from possible anomalies such as yours.

You might find this excerpt from the Oakland Tribune to be interesting:

" This year, though, it's the early red maple that's creating buzz, as well as sniffles. A New Jersey conservationist posted an urgent message on a biology listserv on Feb. 1 about the early blooming. A 2007 study found that since 1970, that tree is blossoming on average at least 19 days earlier in Washington, D.C.

Such changes have "implications for the animals that are dependent on this plant," Weltzin said, as he stood beneath a blooming red maple in late February. By the time the animals arrive, "the flowers may already be done for the year." The animals may have to find a new food source.

"It's all a part of life," Weltzin said. "Timing is everything."
September 8, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

yes it is, green. if we didn't have this year, with snow again on mother's day, and 1970 looked like 05 or 06, we could say 12-13 days early here as well. i wonder when their tree bloomed this year?
September 9, 2008

3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

jackson_foi writes:

And with regard to sources, my favorites are:

http://climatedebatedaily.com/ and

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pro...

There are many that promote, but few that are actually balanced.
September 10, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

I'm not a defender of Gore by any means, but he isn't attacking scientific analysis and theory, Coleman is. Gore doesn't claim to be a scientist, Coleman does.

theory: In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

Yep..Coleman is attacking.....a......."theory"

Al Gore is supporting and promoting...a "theory"

Nuff Said! greenleaf
September 10, 2008

5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

gary,

Gee, I thought this thread had unravelled. I checked it by mistake. Gary, why would you write a response two days after the person you are posting it to last posted? Are you trying to get the last word?

Well to answer your post: You have kind of lost my point which was that Coleman is a layman pretending to be a scientist as he attacks scientific theory without the background to make him credible. Gore isn't a scientist and doesn't claim to be. He presents the results of actual scientist's work on the theory of Global Warming as well as their conclusions, not his own. He is the messenger Gary, only the messenger. Attack Gore and you attack the messenger, not the science.
September 11, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

gary writes:

greenleaf...
My life does not revolve around posting on this thread. I only come here once in a while.

I am attacking the fact that all of this Global Warming is nothing but a theory...and that is what Al Gore and the scientists are pushing. Just as the Global Cooling was a theory years ago.

Theories as guessing nothing more not a fact!

You may post again... I will not respond...you can have the last post..I do not care.

Nuff Said!
September 13, 2008

11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

FormalistAesthete writes:

"Thirty or forty years ago, I recall the most horrendous calamity on the horizon was Global Cooling...Those same experts are now fingering Global Warming"

The press made a big deal about the "coming ice age" a few decades ago, but the theory was endorsed by only a handful of climate scientists. The concern about global warming is shared by an overwhelming majority of climate scientists. So, no, it is not the "same experts".

"Granted there is some global warming going on, but it’s not caused by man...the surface temperature of Saturn, and it seems to be varying in the same directions and to the same degree as that of the earth. Are man’s bad habits affecting Saturn’s atmosphere, also, or are both planets responding to solar activity?"

If solar activity were the only controlling factor, the Earth would have been cooling for about the last 15 years. In fact, the cumulative effect of all known natural climate forcings should have resulted in the Earth cooling over the past 15 years.

"The ozone level is another example. It seems like yesterday we were lectured on the expanding ozone hole. Oddly enough, the hole also closes—depending on solar activity—and expands and contracts constantly. Is that why we haven’t heard that much about the ozone hole lately?"

The ozone hole was caused by chloroflourocarbons. These chemicals have been banned for several decades. Therefore, the ozone hole is shrinking (but is still present).
September 15, 2008

12:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

DavidG writes:

Interesting exchange. I can't help thinking that Ken's initial claim was written just to keep the discussion going on this issue. Whether he really believes this or not, I think that we all have to face some facts. The arctic ice shelf is disappearing, Glacier National park is on its way to being Glacier-Less National Park. Photo comparisons of glaciers in the alps clearly show major loss of ice over a period of time not even as long as we have had cars. Antarctica and Greenland are indeed falling apart. Weather patterns are changing and there is very little doubt that the situation is indeed a crisis. If its not man made, what happened? We did not get clobbered by a major asteriod from space in recent history. The sun is not getting warmer; if it was we must be shipping it fuel. While there have been volcanic eruptions, these things were blowing their stacks for a long time before we started burning oil and coal.

Al Gore is mainly the presenter of this story. His information comes from many, many scientists who know what they are doing. I am simply appalled that a national candidate can even suggest that we are not responsible for this. Who is to gain by delaying action at this critical time? Certainly the players in the oil, gas, and coal industries. Maybe even those who see a water route from Alaska to Europe.

Home › Opinion › Speakout

EWING: 'Crisis' of global warming is fiction

Kenneth Ewing

Published September 6, 2008 at 6 a.m.

More Speakout

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs