3629 Shares

Do you think global warming exists today?

Do you think global warming exists today? Topic: University personal statement examples history
June 17, 2019 / By Blanch
Question: In my opinion, this extreme weather Earth is experiencing might be global warming, but how do we know that? Could extreme weather had happened in 1900s or 1800s; there weren't instruments which could record weather in those days? Could this "extreme weather" we are having now, be "normal weather"?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Do you think global warming exists today?

Ainsley Ainsley | 2 days ago
Read this - Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? By Timothy Ball Monday, February 5, 2007 Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why. What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on? Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets. No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong? Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976. I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on. Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling. No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent. I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint. In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment? Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises. Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted. Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention. Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information. I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction. ------------------------------... Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]
👍 132 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Do you think global warming exists today? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: University personal statement examples history


Ainsley Originally Answered: Quick question for you Global Warming experts, what caused the Global Warming approximately 14,000 years ago?
Global warming is a hoax. The media lie about it (and about a lot of other things). 1. If you look at the Earth's average annual temperature of the last 10,000 years, you will find that, within that period, the earth was hottest (and highest above the average of the entire 10,000 years) from about 7,000 years ago to about 3,000 years ago. We are presently below the average of the last 10,000 years. 2. I don't think there were cro-magnon men driving around in SUVs during the time from 7,000 to 3,000 years ago, nor do I recall heavy industry being present on the earth during that time, or any other of the trappings of modern man, so that would seem to disprove the idea that man is causing the earth's temperature fluctuations. 3. When the UN declared global warming to be a fact in 2006, they relied for their information on a NASA report. After the UN made their announcement, the NASA scientist who wrote the report came forward and said that the UN had removed 2 paragraphs from his report before using it. The first removed paragraph said that there is no evidence that greenhouse gases are responsible for the climate changes we are seeing, and the second removed paragraph said that there is no evidence that human activity has anything to do with the greenhouse gases. The UN didn't like those two paragraphs, because they disproved the statement that the UN wished to make. So the UN did what many organizations and individuals do when confronted with facts that don't support their agenda. They lied. 4. Other planets in our solar system have temperature fluctuations too, and I don't think there are people burning petroleum products there. The earth has gone through various temperature fluctuations for as long as it has been in existence, and it will continue to do so until it no longer exists. The fact that we are experiencing one of these fluctuations now in no way proves that we humans had anything whatsoever to do with it. We are polluting our atmosphere (although not to the degree that the media tell us), but we are not warming the earth. A much bigger problem is that of overpopulation. If we don't figure that one out fairly soon, none of the other problems will matter, because we will, as a species, become unable to support ourselves.

Toney Toney
Ro!'s answer is a 9-year old cut and paste job from a think tank funded by exxon-mobile, DaimlerChrysler, El Paso Energy, and similar sources. Neither he nor the original cites their sources. It is also shockingly wrong. 1st - we have good records of weather from the 20th century, and fairly good going back farther than that. Certainly "extreme" events are well recorded, including droughts, floods, and storms. The paleoclimatic dataset is pretty good and improving, we have a good record of mean temperatures for a number of locations around the globe going back many tens of thousands of years. 2nd - weather is not climate, and it is impossible to attribute any one event to "global warming." There is good evidence that climate change will lead to more extreme events, and it is very clear that the last decade or so is exceptional within the historical climate record. 3rd - while it is true that the earth's climate does vary over time, modern climate science has gotten pretty sophisticated, and it is clear that anthropogenic CO2 emissions should have effects that are consistent with what we are observing. This is why the IPCC says they are 90% certain that the observed changes are driven by human activity.
👍 50 | 👎 -2

Rayner Rayner
We are still in the process of exiting from the last Ice Age which "officially" ended almost 10,000 years ago. We have not yet reached the peak temperatures that existed before the last Ice Age started and the sea levels are not as high as they once were. Man might be contributing a little bit to it, but global warming is part of Earth's natural cycle.
👍 49 | 👎 -6

Mattaniah Mattaniah
Regardless of where a person stands on global warming, there are things that should be done. Get rid of gas guzzlers, check into passive solar options, recycle and re-purpose items, plant trees, etc. We need to break our oil habit that has us enriching regimes that hate us and lining the pockets of big oil executives who are fleecing us. Check out the sites below. If you really believe it global warming, what are you doing about it? Just talking, or taking action?
👍 48 | 👎 -10

Joab Joab
Scientists are 90% certain that human activities are the cause of global warming. That is down from 95% in the 2001 IPCC report. Also, woking at less than 95% confidence means is outside of standard scientific practices. you should also note that the IPCC report just issued is a summary for policy makers, it is not the actual report, and as such, contains very little of the science. I think it is bunk to say that humans are causeing global warming. Every day, more and more journal articles, as opposed to that crap in the newspapers, are published that point out the obvious flaws in the hypothesis that manmade CO2 is the cause of global warming. From: Environ Geol (2006) 50: 899–910 "After the Kyoto Protocol had been announced in 1997 (Kyoto Protocol 1997), many researchers around the world criticized its provisions (that imposed drastic restrictions on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission in developed countries) as meaningless and catastrophic. Logical and quantitative comparison analyses presented in the publications of Robinson et al. (1998), Soon et al. (2001), Bluemle et al. (2001), Baliunas (2002), Sorokhtin (2001), Sorokhtin and Ushakov (2002), Gerhard (2004), and Khilyuk and Chilingar (2003, 2004) showed that the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gasses) emission is a myth. This myth proved to be an enduring one." "The writers identified and described the global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: solar irradiation as a dominant energy supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); outgassing as a dominant gaseous matter supplier to the atmosphere (and hydrosphere); and microbial activities at the interface of the lithosphere and atmosphere. The scope and extent of these processes are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate (such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases)." "Inspection of the global atmospheric temperature changes during the last 1,000 years (Fig. 11) shows that the global average temperature dropped about 2C over the last millennium. This means that we live in the cooling geologic epoch (which comprises most of the Holocene), and the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history. The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere. Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01C (of approximately 0.56C (1F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century) (Khilyuk and Chilingar 2003, 2004)." From: Pure appl. geophys. 162 (2005) 1557–1586 "11. Summary and Conclusions During the long geological history of the earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth has been warming and cooling at highly irregular intervals and the amplitudes of temperature change were also irregular. The warming of about 0.3 C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Besides land-use change, solar variability and the sun’s brightness appear to provide a more significant forcing on earth’s climate than previously believed. Recent studies suggest solar influence as a primary driver of the earth’s climate in geological times. Even on a shorter time scale, solar irradiance and its variability may have contributed to more than sixty percent of the total warming of the 20th century. The impact of solar activity like cosmic ray flux on the earth’s cloud cover has not been fully explored and may provide an additional forcing to the earth’s mean temperature change. There appears to be no intimate link between global warming and worldwide extreme weather events to date. Increasing economic impact due to extreme weather events in the conterminous USA appears to be a result of societal change in wealth and population and not due to global warming. Outside of USA, very few studies have been reported thus far which make a meaningful analysis of economic impact of extreme weather events. There has been no accelerated sea-level rise anywhere during the 20th century. Our review suggests that the present state of global warming science is at an important cross road. There is a definite need to reassess the science and examine various issues that have been discussed and analyzed here." From: Meteorol Atmos Phys 95, 115–121 (2007) "Despite the increasing trend in atmospheric CO2 concentration, the patterns of 20-year and 60-year oscillation of global temperature are all in falling. Therefore, if CO2 concentration remains constant at present, the CO2 greenhouse effect will be deficient in counterchecking the natural cooling of global climate in the following 20 years. Even though the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated. It is high time to re-consider the trend of global climate changes." Just three of the many peer reviewed articles that cast doubt on manmade global warming.
👍 47 | 👎 -14

Joab Originally Answered: What is Global Warming? What greenhouse gases cause global warming? It can send us into the next ice age?
The most abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor. Certain compounds can trap more heat per unit of gas, but the sheer volume of water vapor makes it the largest contributor to global warming. You certainly don't hear much about that in the news or its effect on global warming. Also, be sure to research whether carbon dioxide forces temperature up or whether temperature going up forces carbon dioxide. Definitely some conflict there. Resolving that could be very important to a good understanding of what is occuring. The politicians will always renounce things that they don't understand at first. With global warming, if the same lies are repeated over and over, the politicians will eventually believe it is occuring because the general public will eventually begin to believe it is occuring. The propaganda film you mentioned is a tool used to scare people by taking a very complicated subject and condensing it to a few cartoons, animations, and voice-overs by a used-up politician that does not have a job unless he creates one.

If you have your own answer to the question university personal statement examples history, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.