Are the linked myths about climate change really myths?
http://envirotruth.org/myths.cfm
Well, I believe that we have had global warming since the end of the last ice age. This current, and real, global warming trend that we are now in, at least initially, was certainly NOT caused by hair spray nor freon air conditioners nor car exhausts.
It’s possible, even likely that human activity has to some extent exacerbated the current state of global warming, but there is simply insufficient evidence to sugest we are wholly responsible. The Earth has gone through frar more tumultuous change in it’s past, long before humans became industrialized. That said, measure to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses and lower energy consumption can’t hurt, and might help. Calling them frivolous and counterproductive is irresponsible at best.
Envirotruth is sponsored by The National Center for Public Policy Research which describes itself thusly:
They might be slightly more agenda driven than science driven. I Dunno, looks like a case of “They report, you decide.”
Not sure what they mean by ‘consensus of world scientists’, however you find that a majority of climatologists would agree that although there is not ‘proof’ that humans contribute to climate change, the balance of evidence “suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
If you like pictures - from IPCC (I couldnt find the link to IPCC on the envirotruth page)
It is a purely political site. The chances that there is significant agreement with the majority of scientists is nearly nil.
Note basic flaws in reasoning: E.g., We don’t know if we are destroying the Earth, so let’s pretend we’re not and ignore the whole thing.
Keep in mind, the guys who originally predicted ozone depletion were wrong. They were too conservative. It was depleted faster than they predicted.
(There is a lot of hooey about ozone depletion still being spread on the 'Net as well, long after the science was adequately verified.)
It’s politics, not Science.
Just taking a quick look through the site, a bunch of the refutations posted rely on the work of Dr Tim Patterson of Carleton University. I don’t know anything about Dr. Patterson, but when you see one scientist used over and over again as a citation, beware.
My gut reaction is that politics comes before science on that site. Looking at the website for the National Center for Public Policy Research, I find interesting arguments like:
“In a society in which it is considered permissible to offer methadone to heroin users and clean needles to drug addicts, it is reasonable to promote smokeless tobacco as an alternative to cancer-causing cigarettes.”
Cite
“Transportation is a modern necessity. Big government has inadvertently made SUVs and minivans the only vehicles that can accommodate many families.”
cite
“Yet, energy has to come from somewhere, and as America’s environmentalists oppose oil, natural gas, hydroelectric power, nuclear power, burning coal and even, when thought unsightly, wind farms, they really ought to tell the American people how they intend to keep the future from looking an awful lot like the Great Blackout of August 2003. Though I suppose by then we’ll call them ‘Greenouts.’”
cite
As for the specific claims on climate change, I think those points can be safely dismissed by the large majority of climate scientists, but seeing as how that organization apparenty has an axe to grind, I doubt its that useful to go into specifics that haven’t already been noted.
No, it was probably initiated when people started burning large amounts of coal during the Industrial Revolution.