Global Warming?

For class on Monday I read an article entitled 450 ways to decrease global warming by Bill McKibben.


This guy is an idiot.

I don't necessarily believe in the theory of global warming. It's still a theory. I think we should be concerned about it. We need to be aware of it so that we can take necessary steps to prevent it but when I read articles like this that are just full of irrelevant and misguided information, it really makes me mad. This writer uses scare tactic after scare tactic to fool unknowledgeable readers. He skews data to fit his view and then makes ill conceited arguments of completely unrelated things. Don't take everything you read at face-value.

McKibben begins by writing, "Everyone without a severe ideological kink knows by now that global warming is a looming problem."

Hmmm really? There must be some serious ideological kinky scientists at NASA then because they have data that shows that ocean temperatures have actually been steadily decreasing the past ten years. Oceans are the great regulator of earth's temperatures. If data is showing that they are cooling then obviously global warming is not such a looming problem. I am actually more concerned for global cooling because that affects crop yield and food production. That is a scarier prospect than global warming. People that come up with data that shows the earth is warming are taking surface readings where concrete and buildings reflect and retain more heat giving them false readings. This is most obvious in places like Dallas, Texas. Look at surface temperatures there from 100 years ago when Dallas was much smaller compared to those of today. Could it be that concrete is giving us false readings and not CO2? Hmm....

Then he goes on to say, "Even in the United States, two decades of energy industry disinformation is finally wearing off: Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Gore have finally blown most doubt away."

This is completely erroneous. I cannot believe anyone would write this. First of all, hurricanes have been happening for many many thousands of years. Hurricans are natural and have have occurred before the industrial revolution. The reason Katrina was so bad has nothing to do with CO2 increases. Katrina was bad because it happened to strike New Orleans dead on, a city below sea level. This is a scare tactic and he has no basis to make such claims. Katrina has NOTHING to do with the theory of global warming.

Now on to him skewing data to fit his argument. McKibben states, "Before
the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was roughly 280 parts per million."

Do you know what parts per million means? It sounds really big. It sounds horrible. I even was caught up in its deceptive nature until I looked up what it actually represents. Parts per million refers to the percentage of gas in the atmosphere. So 280 parts per million really means 0.0280%. A part per million means you shift the decimal point over six spots. Putting that number in perspective now doesn't sound so impressive does it? Earth's atmosphere is roughly 78% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, 1% argon, and carbon dioxide makes up 360 parts per million or 0.036% of our atmosphere currently. Helium, methane and the other random gases make up the rest.

McKibben then states that, "CO2, by virtue of its molecular structure, regulates how much of the sun’s energy stays trapped in our narrow envelope of atmosphere—Mars, which has very little, is cold; Venus, with a lot, is hellish."

His argument about Mars and Venus, also totally irrelevant. The average temperature of Mars is -80 degrees Farenheit. That includes the extreme cold temperatures at the poles (-200) and the warm temperatures at the equator (+80). Venus's average temperature is 850 degrees Farenheit. Mars and Venus have such drastic differences in temperature because of their distances from the sun, not because of their carbon dioxide make-up. Mars is colder because it is further from the sun and Venus is extremely hot because it is closer to the sun. For example just look at Mercury, the closest planet to the sun. It has very little atmosphere and is just as hot as Venus. The atmospheric make-up has some part to do with retaining heat but is no way the sole cause.

I write all of this because I cannot stand people writing irrelevant and biased information, passing it off as scientific proof. My journal to reduce my carbon footprint is my personal effort to reduce my impact but also to point out others misconceptions and failings. Global warming is still just a theory. Just as bad (and more of a concern) however, is global cooling. There is more data that shows that earth goes in natural cycles of glacial periods. Humans may have an impact but as of yet it is all theory. Don't get fooled by articles that throw information at you. Look up that information and understand what is being said.

Here is a great article by Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant, that explains my stand on global warming and includes scientific data unlike McKibben's article.