# "Smoking gun" proves global warming exists? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262 "2005-05-24T15:23:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/1 "2005-05-24T15:23:15Z")
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies has released findings that scientist/journalist Michio Kaku calls the “smoking gun” that finally proves global climate change is taking place. From [http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/:](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/:) > [@](#): > > Apr. 28, 2005 > > Any debate or discussion about climate change starts from the basic fact that Earth’s temperature depends on the balance between how much solar energy the Earth absorbs and how much it radiates back into space. Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) have completed a study of the Earth’s energy balance using a combination of global climate models, ground-based measurements, and satellite observations, and they have some important news. Not only is Earth absorbing about 0.85 Watts of energy per square meter more than it is radiating back to space, but a sizable chunk of that excess energy is “hiding” in Earth’s oceans, its full effect on the climate system still unrealized. > > Ten years of observations show that Earth’s oceans absorbed an average of 6.02 excess watt-years of energy per square meter (a watt-year is the total amount of energy supplied by 1 watt of power for a year.) Model simulations are in close agreement: an average of five “runs” of the GISS climate model to simulate evolution of the climate since 1880 predicts that by 2003, the imbalance would be about 5.98 watt-years per square meter. > > According to the scientists, > > > [@](#): > > > > The present planetary energy imbalance is large by standards of Earth’s history. For example, an imbalance of 1 Watt per square meter maintained for the last 10,000 years is sufficient to melt ice equivalent to 1 kilometer of sea level (if there were that much ice), or raise the temperature of the ocean above the thermocline [the boundary layer between the warm, surface waters and the deep ocean] by more than 100°C. > > Earth’s average global temperatures have not increased enough since 1880 to account for the total energy imbalance. Although some of the excess heat has gone to melt snow and ice and to warm the land surface, much of the energy imbalance that has accumulated since 1880 has been stored in the ocean and has not made its presence felt. Instead, the scientists say that in addition to the 0.6-0.7°C warming that has happened over the past century or so, an additional 0.6°C increase in average global temperatures remains “in the pipeline,” even if greenhouse gas concentrations and other climate-warming influences immediately stopped increasing. Does this settle the question once and for all? Or is it still possible to have reasonable doubt as to whether global climate change is taking place? Furthermore, do these findings establish that global climate change is anthropogenic? I’m not clear on how they rule out the possibility that the observed warming is part of a natural cycle that would have followed the same schedule if the human race had never evolved. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/2 "2005-05-24T15:36:26Z")
> [@BG](#): > > Does this settle the question once and for all? Or is it still possible to have reasonable doubt as to whether global climate change is taking place? I don’t think it settles it once and for all, but its certainly another piece of the puzzle. I don’t think we still have enough data, especially long term data, to completely accurately model the earths climate and make accurate predictions…and until and unless we do, there will always be questions. > [@BG](#): > > Furthermore, do these findings establish that global climate change is anthropogenic? I’m not clear on how they rule out the possibility that the observed warming is part of a natural cycle that would have followed the same schedule if the human race had never evolved. Well, thats the kicker isn’t it…and what you are really driving at. The answer is the same as the above…we don’t have enough data yet, though there are indications that point to the strong possibility that humans are at least partially the cause…if indeed we are in a major climate shift. Of course, there have been wide ranges of climate shift in the earths past that happened without humans being around at all. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/3 "2005-05-24T16:14:34Z")
Well, **xtisme** , my question to you is: How do you know that we don’t have enough data, or how much will be enough? Your reply seems like the pat response of any of the people who have an interest in deferring the obvious conclusion. Here, in this case, the researchers have 10 years of data, and their conclusions are in accord with what I understand to be at least dozens, if not hundreds, of other studies and observations. So why is it insufficient, and when will it be sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/4 "2005-05-24T16:23:01Z")
There doesn’t need to be a smoking gun in this case. The scientific community has long known and accepted the fact that the world is warming up. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/5 "2005-05-24T16:26:07Z")
> [@](#): > > So why is it insufficient, and when will it be sufficient? I dunno. How many people actually still believe that global warming **isn’t** an observed and provable phenomenon? I really don’t think there are all that many. It’s the _cause_ of the phenomenon that’s so hotly (heh) contested, isn’t it? And 125 years isn’t really enough, in my opinion, to place the bulk of the blame on manmade atmospheric pollutants - such as CO[sub]2[/sub]. Especially when the period you’re trying to draw a conclusion from (which is essentially the industrial revolution) is the only period for which we have concrete data. It simply can’t be compared to anything else to see if the warming trend we’re currently experiencing is unique. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/6 "2005-05-24T16:32:33Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Here, in this case, the researchers have 10 years of data, and their conclusions are in accord with what I understand to be at least dozens, if not hundreds, of other studies and observations. Thats all true…but a sample size of 10 years is pretty scant when talking about the climate on a world wide scale. While I make no claims to being an expert on this subject, from what I recall it would take a much larger sample size to be able to accurately model the earths weather patterns and climate and make the kind of firm predictions that this statement indicates: “Does this settle the question once and for all?” If I’m wrong and the general consensus of the experts in the various fields touching on this subject is that 10 years is plenty of data to make such a strong statement that this subject has been put to rest, i.e. ‘settled once and for all’ then I encourage you to post some cites of said consensus of scientists and fight my ignorance. > [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > So why is it insufficient, and when will it be sufficient? When I see a majority consensus across the board in the various sciences effected, and not a continued split and continued debate over the issues Hentor. As I’m not an expert on the subject, I have to basically follow along with those folks who ARE the experts. Afaik, the last time I dipped (admittedly its been a while) more deeply into this subject, the experts were divided on such key questions as A) Is a major climate shift coming or already here, B) What exactly does that mean, what possible range of effects can we expect, C) What are the causes of such a shift if its happening, D) Is human behavior the over all driving force behind a potential climate shift and E) Is there anything humans can realistically do to ‘fix’ the problem. Perhaps you are an expert on the climate Hentor, or perhaps you play one on TV…I make no such claims. If you have evidence that a large majority of scientists have come to a consensus over these issues and that I’m simply in denial I will re-evaluate my position on this subject. -XT ---
**Author:** ![pdx\_craig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pdx\_craig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdx_craig)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/7 "2005-05-24T16:44:48Z")
To me, the debate is really “Do we have enough evidence to affect public policy?” The evidence for manmade global warming has consistently mounted. While I encourage doubt and debate in the scientific process down to the last iota of a possibility, there seems to be plenty enough evidence to take precautionary measures. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/8 "2005-05-24T17:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > The evidence for manmade global warming has consistently mounted. While I encourage doubt and debate in the scientific process down to the last iota of a possibility, there seems to be plenty enough evidence to take precautionary measures. Depends entirely on the “precautionary measures” proposed. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/9 "2005-05-24T18:27:08Z")
Most of the data I have seen shows that the earth has warmed as solar activity has increased, and that the relationship is linear. If manmade concentrations of greenhouse gases were a culprit, you would expect to see a multiplier effect when in fact there is not one present. [For a vivid illustration of this, please note the graph at the top of this page.](http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/varsun.html) ---
**Author:** ![butler1850](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@butler1850](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler1850)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/10 "2005-05-24T19:32:00Z")
this just in. “Cavemen” report global warming, glaciers melting, life on earth to end shortly. This report replaces reports from 10K years previous that report global cooling… glaciers growing, formerly lovely caves now uninhabitable… tragedy! Life on earth to end shortly. Personally, I think we just don’t know enough yet. Once we can get real measurements from the distant past, I might buy into it. I personally think the earth is too good at changing for us to have a real impact on it in the long term. Perhaps we can _slightly_ increase a rate of change, but the system will swing into balance as it has in the past. -Butler ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/11 "2005-05-24T19:37:25Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Especially when the period you’re trying to draw a conclusion from (which is essentially the industrial revolution) is the only period for which we have concrete data. It simply can’t be compared to anything else to see if the warming trend we’re currently experiencing is unique. Not so. The ice shield over Greenland is almost two miles thick and records climatic events going back 130,000 years. Core samples taken and analyzed since 1996 have given scientists new levels of knowledge about pre-industrial climate cycles. See [http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm](http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/12 "2005-05-24T19:49:19Z")
Thanks for the link Mr. Moto! I wanted to post something from that link and discuss it briefly: > [@](#): > > "I distributed your article among my solar oscillations group at Stanford, and we have some comments for you. About 15 years ago, several members of our group did a lot of sun-weather and some sun-climate work. > > "The general opinion from my group is that it is too soon to tell about Cycle 23. We don’t believe that we have a long enough timebase of reliable measurments to make accurate predictions of global warming or cooling. > > "In addition, there are mechanisms including absorption by interplanetary dust that need to be taken into account in any attempts at modeling the long term climate behaviour. This is kind of what I was getting at and how I remembered the debate from my own time in college. Basically how I remembered things was that there were various theories that ran the gamit from ‘global warming’ to ‘a new ice age’…but each always cavioted with something like ‘we just don’t have sufficient data yet to properly model an entire world to make fixed predictions as to what exactly is going on and what it means’. -XT ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/13 "2005-05-24T19:53:18Z")
Question really isn’t “is there currently some good evidence of global warming?” but rather: 1. How long term is it? 2. is it part of a natural cycle? 3. What is causing it? 4. Are humans having a significant part in the cause- whatever it may be? 5. Is there anything we can really do to stop our part? 6. If one nation, or even half the nations, try and cut back- will it do any good if the others just keep on spewing? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/14 "2005-05-24T20:03:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Not so. The ice shield over Greenland is almost two miles thick and records climatic events going back 130,000 years. Core samples taken and analyzed since 1996 have given scientists new levels of knowledge about pre-industrial climate cycles. See [http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm](http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/p5.htm). Hmmm. Interesting link. Lemme take some time to digest that and then I’l have more to say. Thanks for posting it. ---
**Author:** ![pdx\_craig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e495f1/32.png) [@pdx\_craig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pdx_craig)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/15 "2005-05-24T20:33:19Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Depends entirely on the “precautionary measures” proposed. Well the devil is in the details isn’t it? My impression from talking to scientists has been that the earth is a complex system and the doubts can pretty much always be raised, but that most scientists involved tend to believe that the evidence is about as sound as you can get. As far as I’m concerned the stance of demanding absolute proof is absurd because it can’t be met until things are too late. Personally at this point, the evidence is such that I demand absolute proof that it **isn’t** happening. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/16 "2005-05-24T20:44:10Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Hmmm. Interesting link. Lemme take some time to digest that and then I’l have more to say. Thanks for posting it. James Howard Kunstler discusses the Greenland core sample findings in chapter 5 of his new book, _The Long Emergency_ ([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116965793/sr=8-1/ref=pd\_csp\_1/002-7269971-7884801?v=glance&s=books&n=507846](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883/qid=1116965793/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-7269971-7884801?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)): > [@](#): > > The Greenland ice core samples tell us that the Holocene period [the current geological period] has had alternating periods of cooling and warmth within a relatively stable range. The Holocene, at onset, stumbled at first. The retreat from the last ice age was interrupted by a brief but pronounced cooling called the Younger-Dyas period, which lasted about 1,200 years starting around 12,000 B.B. _Homo sapiens_ was already established as a species and had been using tools since before the previous ice age. Their numbers and range had been increasing since the glaciers retreated. The Younger-Dyas episode suspended the retreat of the glaciers temporarily and might have provoked the transition from hunter-gatherer culture to agricultural “takeoff.” Cooling in the region now called the Middle East would have transformed forested terrain into grassland. Agriculture began as the domestication of cereal grasses. This learning process appears to have taken a few thousand years to complete, during which the climate warmed again and remained unusually benign, The glaciers resumed their retreat. . . . > > \ > > Climatic shifts in more recent times account for historical trends with implications for our present situation. A cooling followed the height of the Roman Empire, bringing, for instance, more rain to England, affecting adversely the health of livestock, and making marginal farming lands submarginal. The Dark Ages were also cool ages. A medieval warming occurred between the ninth and fourteenth centuries; this accounts for historical events such as the settlement of Greenland by the Vikings and the cultivation of vineyards in England. During this period, the human population bloomed with the feudal method of social organization. Toward the end of the medieval warming, the Black Death depleted the European population by as much as one-third and created labor shortages that put an end to feudal social organization. The Renaissance began in Italy as a slight cooling occurred; labor shortages following the Black Death enhanced the value of the individual. A more pronounced dip in temperature produced the Little Ice Age in Europe from the 1500s into the mid-1800s – as chronicled, for instance, by the Dutch landscape painters who show people skating on the frozen canals of Holland, which in the modern era no longer freeze. **The average temperature differential between these two periods was only a few degrees, yet the effects were marked.** The cooling of the Little Ice Age produced the deforestation of England and the increased use of coal, and therefore led to inventions for improving coal extraction, namely the steam-powered pump for removing water from coal mines, which soon led to steam-powered railroads and the whole industrial explosion, in which more versatile oil and gas came to replace coal. The brief fossil fuel interval of the last two hundred years has accompanied another warming period, perhaps even stimulated it. And, of course, the amenity of oil has permitted a twentieth-century human population boom like nothing ever seen before. These historical temperature fluctuations, however, may have been minor compared to what we are facing now, especially in light of our depleting oil and gas supplies. > > Stepping back to view the larger-scale picture is sobering. The Greenland ice core record shows that the past 100,000 years have been a climatic roller coaster. It is clear that once climate change begins, it can occur very erratically, a kind of “speed wobble” that ends in a crash. The climax of the last ice age, for instance, was 21,000 years ago, when glaciers extended as far south as what is now Connecticut. The transition from the last ice age into the present Holocene was intensely wobbly, including the Younger-Dyas episode. As Elizabeth Kolbert reports: "The temperatures did not rise slowly or even steadily; instead the climate flipped several times from temperate conditions back to those of the ice age, and back again. **Around fifteen thousand years ago, Greenland abruptly warmed by sixteen degrees in fifteen years or less. In one particularly traumatic episode some twelve thousand years ago, the mean temperature in Greenland shot up by fifteen degrees in a single decade."** > > It appears that the earth has gone in and out of ice ages on a fairly regular cyclical basis for at least one million years, though the individual cycles show idiosyncrasies of their own. The past interglacial warm period that seems most to resemble the present Holocene is the Eemian, running approximately 130,000 to 110,000 years ago (the point at which the Greenland ice record ends at bedrock). The complete transition from the Eemian warm period to the ice age that followed took no more than 400 years. As the cold grew more severe, the earth’s climate also became drier. Water evaporated less effectively from the ocean at colder temperatures and rainfall on land decreased, though ice accumulated from the poles downward. Forests all over the world gave way to drier grasslands and deserts. A slight warming occurred about 60,000 years ago, and then at 30,000 years another cycle of intense cooling and glaciation occurred, which peaked about 21,000 years ago. Around 14,000 years ago there was a rapid global warming and moistening, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. The planet was then well on the way to the present Holocene interglacial period – if that’s what it is. > > We may now be entering a climate speed wobble, which is being aggravated by mankind’s release of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is only one of several so-called greenhouse gases that tend to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, or prevent it from radiating into space, and it is the least effective by far of the three main culprits. The most effective heat-trapping agent is water vapor. The next one is methane, approximately twenty times more effective as an earth insulator than CO2. Methane is a by-product of agriculture (especially from rice paddies or released in the excrement of domestic animals) or produced by decay in swamps (methane is also known as “swamp gas”) or by the thawing of organic matter in the warming tundra. That said, however, carbon dioxide is certainly an effective greenhouse gas, and **the amount of carbon dioxide as a percentage of the atmosphere today has not been so high since the days of the dinosaurs.** By putting large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, humans are exerting pressure on an inherently unstable climate system that might produce a drastic change without much prior warning. He goes on to emphasize that “global climate change” is a preferable name for this phenomenon, because “global warming” might not have a net warming effect everywhere. For instance, Western Europe is warmed by the Gulf Stream, which is driven by a temperature differential itself based on a salinity differential between the waters of the North Atlantic and the Middle Atlantic. If global warming led to melting ice in the North Atlantic, and that changed the salinity of the water significantly, that might put an end to the Gulf Stream or redirect it – and Western Europe would grow as cold as Labrador. (Bear in mind that Rome is at roughly the same latitude as New York City; it’s only the Gulf Stream that makes it warmer.) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/17 "2005-05-24T20:50:47Z")
> [@pdx\_craig](#): > > My impression from talking to scientists has been that the earth is a complex system and the doubts can pretty much always be raised, but that most scientists involved tend to believe that the evidence is about as sound as you can get. Should be easy then to provide me with a cite that there is a majority consensus among scientists of various fields that this is taking place and that humans are the cause. That is, if you have spoken to a representative sampling of scientists in the various effected fields when you talk about it in the above quote. I’m just skeptical by nature so I need at least something thats not anecdotal. So that you don’t think I’m loading the deck here, I’ll accept a similar consensus as the majority of scientists in various fields have reguarding Evolution…and dismiss similar disention that some fringe scientists have reguarding Evolution or put forth in reguards to ID or similar creation type ‘science’. > [@pdx\_craig](#): > > As far as I’m concerned the stance of demanding absolute proof is absurd because it can’t be met until things are too late. Personally at this point, the evidence is such that I demand absolute proof that it isn’t happening. If this is directed at me, I’m not ‘demanding absolute proof’…I’ll be quite content with my request for a cite that the majority consensus is what you are saying and that there is no serious (and qualified) opposition to this point of view from the scientific community. Personally, at this point, I think that there IS no such consensus, and that doing anything would be going off half cocked without sufficient data to ensure that what we were doing is A) Helpful at all, B) Worth whatever sacrifices are called for, C) Wouldn’t make matters worse instead of better…law of unintended consequences and all that. -XT ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/18 "2005-05-24T20:53:09Z")
For the smoking gun to have any impact, you would first have to find someone who even listens to scientists. Or even moreover, give that “Science” stuff any weight whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/19 "2005-05-24T21:20:11Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > For the smoking gun to have any impact, you would first have to find someone who even listens to scientists. Or even moreover, give that “Science” stuff any weight whatsoever. Heh. And we ain’t likely to find that person in this particular administration. Shoulda appointed Bob Park as science advisor. ---
**Author:** ![JohnBckWLD](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d6d6ee/32.png) [@JohnBckWLD](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnBckWLD)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262/20 "2005-05-24T21:36:51Z")
> [@](#): > > …The next (most effective heat-trapping agent) is methane, approximately twenty times more effective as an earth insulator than CO2. Methane is a by-product of agriculture (especially from rice paddies or released in the excrement of domestic animals) or produced by decay in swamps (methane is also known as “swamp gas”) or by the thawing of organic matter in the warming tundra… Considering the fact there approximately 1,500 pounds of menthane producing termites per person on this planet, I find it odd they were omitted from a list that only includes agriculture, swamp decay & tundra thawing. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/smoking-gun-proves-global-warming-exists/305262.md?page=2)