Steward's 10 'Myths' About Global Warming and CO2 Damage

It's good to finally see an obviously accomplished scientist coming out with facts to rebut the hype and 'political science' of the environmentalist's new pet, global warming.

When I was in school, way back in the '70's, the scientific consensus was that we were approaching another ice age, not being threatened by global warming. I find it implausibe that such a drastic change can come about over a mere 30 years. Especially since temperatures have been dropping since 1998, according to the scientific community that DOESN'T receive all of it's funding from the government!

There has been quite a bit of evidence found in the last year that most of the data paraded out by the liberals was junk science, i.e., we have a theory, let's make the data fit our theories. Much of it was deliberatly contrived to serve a particular political agenda, i.e., global warming. They weren't concerned with truth, as it's not as profitable for 'our' government. Or the businesse their cronies co-incidentally formed just before all this 'science' came to light. But you don't see that on the mainstream media newscasts - it's not politically correct. And I don't believe in co-incidences that make someone billions of dollars - there is no such thing.

The carbon footprint fraud being perpetrated on the American people, and many others around the world, is just that - fraud. Junk science being used by corrupt politicians, scientists, and charlatans to increase tax income, increase government control over industry and increase profits for the select companies who toe the party line. Scientists included, as many are completely funded through tax dollars, and if there isn't a crisis, then their 'work' is irrelevant. We can't have that, now, can we?

Not to mention all of the governmant's new agencies and self righteous employees that can completely ruin a company with a few strokes of a pen, or by 'losing' required paperwork and/or permits. Most of these peons are more concerned with justifying their jobs and fat paychecks, than reporting the truth.

It's high time the frauds are exposed for what they are - liars. Al Gore may have invented the internet (woohoo!) but he's not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. As soon as people start thinking for themselves, instead of believing every cockamamie theory that bozo starts spouting off about, the sooner the truth will come out. He may have won the Nobel Peace Prize, but so did Obama, and neither one earned, or deserved the award.

The Nobel Society has lost credibility as a scientific organization and become just another blow hard political special interest group concerned with advancing their own agendas for personal and political profit.

And that's a crying shame.

Steve of MO 8:44PM June 11, 2010

ExxonMobil (exxonmobil.com) agrees with the 2007 IPCC report. ExxonMobil is not liberal media, it is not left-radical anything. ExxonMobil, on its official corporate web-site, continues to state it is proud of its lead scientists who share in the 2007 collective Nobel Peace Prize. Some other major oil corporations who also state that the IPCC is stating the truth include Shell, BP Oil and Chevron. These oil corporations have invested major ammounts of funding in scientific research on the subject. It appears they have followed the path that the truth has led them to.

John of WY 5:17PM December 07, 2009

I have spent several months reading everything I can get my hands on trying to decide if global warming is true or not.

After all the reserch and study I still don't know, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle ground between the two camps.

I know one thing for sure, the polar bears are not in danger, their population has increased over the last 3 decades and now they are about 25 to 30 thousand.

Sea levels have not increased by the amounts forcasted by alarmist like Al Gore, but they have increased. The sea levels increase a little bit every year, it is part of the overall warming between ice ages but we are talking about maybe a foot in the next century.

CO2 is not a polutant, it is food for plants and they expell O2 while feeding. Therefore the higher CO2 gets, the more plants grow and the more O2 they make and we are all better off.

We are currently at 385 PPM of CO2 and the scrubbers on a sub keep the levels below 8,000 PPM. Most commercial greenhouses have CO2 gnerators and they keep the levels at about 1,000 PPM to help their plants grow faster and stronger.

My conclusion is, that there is a bit of global warming but I really don't believe that man has much to do with it. We may try to reduce it but our effect on the climate will be so small as not to do anything.

In Canada, we contribute .1 percent of the total man made global greenhouse gases, so even if we closed everything down, it would make no impact on the climate but it would ruin all of our business and economy. My feeling is lets live and let live and the world will take care of itself. We should concentrate our efforts to reduce real popultion, like Victoria,B.C. dumping it's sewage into the pacific ocean. Like a lot of our cities dumping sewage into rivers and lakes. That is the area that we can improve on things dramaticly. Let tell our politians that we don't want money wasted on CO2 reduction, we want real polution stopped.

Arthur Archer 10:06AM November 29, 2009

There is nothing in the IPCC report, that I'm aware of, which states CO2 is bad. It states that an gross extra amount of it isn't very good, along with other GHG. As far as plants thriving better with all of the CO2 that we can produce - why aren't plants doing that anyways with the excess CO2 that's available right now? Why do we even have any excessive amounts of CO2 if plants supposedly will absorb even more CO2 than what's available right now? Do plants have a mechanism by which they know when they've had their full of CO2? In "test tube" or greenhouse conditions some plants may grow a little bit more with an increase of "forced" CO2. But, that's not Earth. Even if it was true that plants on Earth will utilize excessive amounts of CO2, and some of them may, to a slight amount, we human beings don't get to say which one of God's plants will grow more and which ones won't grow more. Weeds also are plants. Farmers spend a lot of money on herbicides. If farmers have to increase herbicide expenditures, will food costs go up? What happens if the weeds end up growing more than some fruits and vegetables? Is it going to be worth the cost of increasing the temperture of the Earth? That is, if we can even fool mother nature at all.

Joe of OR 2:22PM November 16, 2009