Former astronaut scoffs at global warming

HERE HERE! Global warming is a farce, another way for the elitists to take our money to fix their problems. The earth has been through things alot worse than humans, multiple ice ages, magnetic reversals of the poles, solar flare storms, i don't think gas and plastic is really going to be a problem for the earth.

Former Senator Schmitt thinks that there is a "political consensus that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon-dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." Nonsense. There is no political consensus on climate change. That is why nothing is being done in the United States.

There is, however, a scientific consensus. Every major scientific society in the world is in agreement that global climate change is occurring at an accelerating rate and that man made emissions are a significant part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

There is no doubt that mankind is contributing to pollution, with 6.75 billion of us wandering around, it's impossible not to believe.
The big question is what effect that pollution is having on climate change, if any?
There is no consensus on the amount of climate change we're causing, if any.

I will make up my mind about the effect of carbon imitions as causation of global warming when science finds a way to measure the number one green house gas, water vapor, in the atmosphere and quatifies it. When it comes to limiting carbon, the old grandmothers quote about chicken soup applies, "it can't hurt!"

Earthling wrote:

There is no doubt that mankind is contributing to pollution, with 6.75 billion of us wandering around, it's impossible not to believe.
The big question is what effect that pollution is having on climate change, if any?
There is no consensus on the amount of climate change we're causing, if any.

It's causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/2...

Consensus comes from inside science- you don't get a vote.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warmin...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/2...

Earthling wrote:

There is no doubt that mankind is contributing to pollution, with 6.75 billion of us wandering around, it's impossible not to believe.
The big question is what effect that pollution is having on climate change, if any?
There is no consensus on the amount of climate change we're causing, if any.

If you think there is "no consensus on the amount of climate change we're causing," you haven't read or didn't understand the consensus opinion adopted by all of the most significant scientific societies in the world.

Try this link or the one posted with my prior post.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/cli...

Does it matter if global warming is man made or nature ........ we got a problem here Houston!

I am suspicious of a "scientist" who couches "global warming" in the language of the "political"--especia lly one that has previously been a tool in the machinery of politics. Why would the vast majority of scientists on every continent falsely invent a mountain of data in support of the human influence on global warming for political purposes? A global conspiracy by nations of scientists to clandestinely reshape the world political order? Absurd!
Moreover, this article does not offer any information on what part/parts of the mountains of research this Schmitt is contesting and why. As such, it is merely another contribution to the relativization of news information--a phenomenon which renders all opinions equal.

Schmitt is a highly-educated ignoramus. He probably also thinks the Earth is 6000 years old.

Environmentalists will use any tactic they can get to get their way. Global Warming is surely one way. Tactic of deception to steer hysteria toward a desired end has been around for years. It's not just the Republicans who've been the liars on the national front. Unfortunately it seems that overstatement and decpetion have become the norm in our society. What better way to grab attention of the media who is too dumb and gullible to know the diffeence. Not to mention lazy because some assignment editor never learned in J-school what facts and truth are as opposed to what they think the truth is.

Steve van Dresser wrote:

<quoted text>
If you think there is "no consensus on the amount of climate change we're causing," you haven't read or didn't understand the consensus opinion adopted by all of the most significant scientific societies in the world.
Try this link or the one posted with my prior post.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/cli...

Consesus isn't proof. There was a consensus that the earth was going into an ice age in the 1970s. That didn't happen. There was a consensus that the world would run out of oil by 1980. That was wrong also. I prefer proof to consensus, especially since the consesus is driven by the desire for government research funding.

Even without global warming, pollution from burning fossil fuels, and that the number of cars on the earth will double in 15 years is a horrendous problem. What is this crackpot doing about that?

Don't trust any scientist/astronaut over 70! Plus, this one could have spent a little too much time in the centrifuge. Scientists usually reach their highest capacity for critical thinking at a much younger age.

Small Town wrote:

Does it matter if global warming is man made or nature ........ we got a problem here Houston!

Well, here is Houston :)

The senator should have explained why the temperature increase goes with CO2 increase. And by how much!

Perhaps he will reply here. Would that be great or what!

I would like to know why the senator thinks the increases in temperature and CO2 concentration are related and what he predicts for the future.

Would someone like to tell us how much pollution and CO2 increase due to two wars during recent years and the space activities?

"global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Who exactly is doing this. Who is the person or group doing this?

When I would look in my kids’ rooms and complain about the mess there was a uniform response,“What mess; it looks fine to me.”

The list of human influence on the biosphere is long and growing; climate change is only one item. We need to act on all of these population and consumption dependent issues. If “global warming” is addressed in a fully responsible way, we will be developing models for action on other concerns that will be even more difficult.

As to climate change: there is no question that the earth is retaining more of the solar energy flux today than it did in the recent past. This means that the total energy in all the processes of the biosphere is increasing. This has happened in the past. The earth as had higher concentrations of CO2. The earth as been warmer and storms have been more violent. But, the speed with which these changes are taking place seems to be directly related to human action. Our contribution to greenhouse gases is small, but it is in excess of buffered rates and so especially CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere and oceans, where it is increasing acidity. Evolution responds to change; extinctions are the consequence of rapid change.

We must, as a species, respond adaptively to our impact on the thin film of living space. I would think that Schmitt, of all people, would understand that.

This goes back to 50s when we started recording carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in a "pristine" location. Later in 70s a Japanese scientist started relating the CO2 levels to global warming. Furthermore, his predictions into the future as the trend continued were confirmed by other scientists in other countries.

The European Union (EU) countries are well into the ramifications of the future impact. For example, some 350 city mayors last month signed agreements to reduce their CO2 output in EU. Remember Kyoto agreement that was ignored by USA? There will be Copenhagen 2009 next.

It's like soccer! The whole world is competing .. while we call our "football" games "the world." Am I clear?

Steve van Dresser wrote:

Former Senator Schmitt thinks that there is a "political consensus that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon-dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels." Nonsense. There is no political consensus on climate change. That is why nothing is being done in the United States.
There is, however, a scientific consensus. Every major scientific society in the world is in agreement that global climate change is occurring at an accelerating rate and that man made emissions are a significant part of the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

try to do something about it, building nuclear plants, one of which will produce more electricity than all the windmills, the kooks shut that idea right down.

" 'Consensus,' as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities."

I work with many respected scientists who agree. Global warming is nothing but a great marketing tool and another way to keep people afraid.

Certainly this does not give us the latitude to continue to harm our planet but people need to wake up to the fact there are forces at work beyond our control which are historical and cyclical. NM was once under water and will return that way except not soon enough to wash out the political, societal and human waste woes the state has.

Sorry hippies. Patchouli, pot and sage stink up the environment worse. Take a bath with soap would be a good start.