Writer misunderstands global warming

  • Follow Letters

The title of Marvin Murray's recent guest column, "Global warming debate riddled with inaccuracies" (May 10), is a good one, because his column is filled with falsehoods and misconceptions.

He claims there is no consensus that global warming is occurring, yet 97 percent of climate scientists do believe it's likely that man's industrial activities are contributing to long-term global warming. Mr. Murray labels this majority of climate scientists as fanatics, a mindless insult that weakens his own credibility.

Mr. Murray reveals a lack of understanding of the issue when he concludes global warming isn't happening, because some individual years in the past were warmer than recent years. Scientists admit average annual temperatures always have and will fluctuate. But they believe the unnatural increase in greenhouse gases is causing a long-term trend of increased average temperatures.

Mr. Murray wrote that human respiration was the real source of most of the carbon dioxide on the planet. This is a ridiculous falsehood. Humans do exhale carbon dioxide, but the amount is miniscule compared to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels resulted from the geological process that converted millions of generations of vast forests into coal and oil. Over the past 100 years, factories and cars have suddenly released the massive amount of carbon these fossilized plants slowly absorbed from the atmosphere over millions of years. Moreover, industrial activities release two other greenhouse gases (methane and nitrous oxide) that theoretically contribute to global warming.

Mr. Murray's source, the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is funded by Big Oil. Industry-funded think-tanks are not good, unbiased sources of information. A better source would be www.realclimate.org.

Mark Gelbart

Augusta

Comments (71) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
zzzzzzt
2
Points
zzzzzzt 05/13/09 - 01:05 pm
0
0
So what are you all doing

So what are you all doing about global warming other than blaming the oil companies and big factories? Maybe open up those windows and turn off the AC this summer. Instead of buying the stupid fluorescent bulbs, just turn out the dang lights. Walk or ride your bike to work instead of driving. Drink water out of your faucet instead of plastic bottles. Spend a weekend picking up garbage along the highway and recycle it. If global warming is mans fault, stop blaming everyone else and do something about it. When I see people making real sacrifices because of their beliefs, rather than using it to further their political and social agenda, I will have some respect for their opinions.

1beachbum
0
Points
1beachbum 05/13/09 - 01:10 pm
0
0
Each one of us, and I mean

Each one of us, and I mean each and every one of us has the ability to do something about this! Yes, I recycle. Yes, I drive a VW, which gets over 30 mpg. Yes, I turn off the lights when I leave a room. Yes, I keep the A/C turned off while at work and turn it on when I get home. Waste not, want not. I really try very hard to live by that motto. Do you?

drumbeater1
1
Points
drumbeater1 05/13/09 - 01:18 pm
0
0
the amish are good hard

the amish are good hard working people. they put their money where their mouth is....they are way more disciplined than i am.....so leave them alone.

1beachbum
0
Points
1beachbum 05/13/09 - 01:25 pm
0
0
Drum, you seriously missed

Drum, you seriously missed her point!

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 01:32 pm
0
0
drum, in the words of Ronald

drum, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "There you go again" heh heh heh... You made a very specific allegation: told me that I was equating fish crap with "all the toxins that spew out of factories." I told you that, no, I was refuting a specific point made by the LTE author, with a specific fact that refutes the point he was trying, unsuccessfully, to make. Since I don't have any data about nitrous and did not feel like looking it up, I took the conservative path and acknowledged my ignorance, while speaking about the subject about which I do know something. In that dynamic of hearing and understanding a statement, producing evidence to refute the erroneous statement, and then drawing conclusions about the implications that the facts cited might have for the rest of the LTE's argument, I'm not sure what there is that has to do with drumming and walking and chewing gum, and whatever other clever little point you thought you were making. I was simply taking a reasoned approach toward debunking the LTE, and then responding to you after you said that I was full of something, a conclusion you reached based on something I did not say.

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 01:35 pm
0
0
So, drum, I suggest that, now

So, drum, I suggest that, now that you have mastered drumming and walking, you turn your not-inconsiderable (I'm sure) intellectual gifts toward reading and comprehending, and then perhaps take the next step towards reasoning and expression (BTW, your lack of a dictionary is showing, and I am sorry if your lack of education leads to you conclude that anyone would need a thesaurus to write anything I've posted today). That way, instead of just vomiting up little gems like, "you're full of" (something), you could actually rebut what someone has said. You would then have an actual shot at changing their minds, rather than making people think that you're nothing but another little liberal drone sipping at the Kos/Huffpo springs...

zzzzzzt
2
Points
zzzzzzt 05/13/09 - 01:45 pm
0
0
Yes I do ride my bike to work

Yes I do ride my bike to work and back for the last 15 years. Yes I installed solar panels 10 years ago to provide hot water. Yes I keep the AC turned to 85 in the summer, off when I'm not home. I don't require that my drinking water be trucked in from god knows where in little plastic bottles. I've been recycling since I was in high school (1978), and have planted thousands of acres of trees. I live this way because I believe it is right, not because being green is the latest fad and I naively think i am saving the world. I am also enough of a scientist to have looked at the available data on global warming and formed my own opinion, which is that the evidence is circustantial at best, and that mankinds contribution is likely but a small piece of the entire puzzle.

southernguy08
578
Points
southernguy08 05/13/09 - 01:49 pm
0
0
Gee Mark, why don't you
Unpublished

Gee Mark, why don't you explain to us how eco friendly your environmental leader, AL GORE, is with his 6000 square foot home and flying everywhere he goes by private jet? Hypocrites are a part of every organization, so why don't you just admit he's one and be done with it. Go ahead, you'll feel better for it.

mad_max
1
Points
mad_max 05/13/09 - 01:52 pm
0
0
Same old liberal greeno

Same old liberal greeno whacko crap. It's a "global" problem but it's America's fault and we can solve it by paying more taxes. Oh, just disregard those millions of years of historical data about natural climate change, melting glaciers and icecaps, and follow up ice ages before man was around. It's got to be too low of a tax rate in America that causes this problem. Hey, come back and talk to me when Obama takes the HVAC out of the White House, makes his limo a VW, and when Al Gore parks his private plane and moves out of his 8000 sq. ft. house. Seems to me the ones hollering the loudest are the worst offenders. They know it's bull. It's all about money. If the earth is going to warm, it's going to warm. And there is nothing you can do about it even if you killed off every human on earth today. I'd suggest you get busy trying to adapt to it instead of trying to stop it. Does this mean that when the next ice age starts you will be hollering because where not polluting enough? Don't be afraid of global warming. Embrace it. Maybe some of us poor folk will finally get to own beach front property for once. Do like Clint would say "improvise, adapt, overcome".

Georgiais1
0
Points
Georgiais1 05/13/09 - 02:10 pm
0
0
The tree huggers will lose

The tree huggers will lose this argument. Gore=idiot I can't believe some of you numbsculls. You can't control mother nature.

southernguy08
578
Points
southernguy08 05/13/09 - 02:15 pm
0
0
Thanks, MAD, good post. We
Unpublished

Thanks, MAD, good post. We were both wrong about Big Al's home. According to USA Today, Al Gore's mansion, located in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Nashville, is a whopping 10,000 square feet, with an average utility bill of over $1300 a month! Yeah, sounds like he's really into helping the environment to me. And people call Bush a liar. Typical liberal BS, and I don't mean Barbara Streisand, although they are close.

zzzzzzt
2
Points
zzzzzzt 05/13/09 - 02:16 pm
0
0
Yeah, I remember back in the

Yeah, I remember back in the early 70's and 80's when we were destroying the ozone layer (a major greenhouse gas), which would lead to another ice age. I think 98% of scientist believed in that :).

drumbeater1
1
Points
drumbeater1 05/13/09 - 02:30 pm
0
0
i said if, you know, if you

i said if, you know, if you are drawing the comparison, and quite frankly you writing a lot , but not saying much. practice what you preach with a little tweek to it, don't muddle up the conversation with meaningless,pompous sounding wasted words, you lose the interest of the reader....get to the damn point.also , since you can't see past the pun about the anchovie poop and your being fos, i will apologize for that crappy remark, and btw , the drumming coordination remark was a continued" rational discourse" following up your remark about" two legs,four legs",and levels of complexity of understanding.... question, do you seriously beleive scientists waste time taking reading from compromised settings ??? do you not seriously beleive that as humans we have done more than our share of damage to the enviroment, ?? come on, even you can't be that deep in denial...and again, i do not class myself as a liberal simply because i'd like to see the earth's life sustaining qualities and her resources better utilized and look, don't take me so personal....just do your part to help, we all gotta breathe and eat.....

willistontownsc
55
Points
willistontownsc 05/13/09 - 02:57 pm
0
0
I am watching an ad right now

I am watching an ad right now on WJBF from the World Wildlife Fund right now about the threat global warming poses to polar bears.

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 03:16 pm
0
0
"you writing a lot , but not

"you writing a lot , but not saying much." Well, I'm certainly offering more actual data and reasoned statements to advance the debate than you are. The "four legs/two legs" allusion was to a fairly well-known Orwell passage...don't be so literal. Now, as to your question, "do you seriously beleive scientists waste time taking reading from compromised settings ???" I lost my bookmark to Anthony Watts' site, but that's ok. It required only a 0.32 second google search on the string "temperature stations in bad locations" to find the relevant sites. Again, people who want to stake out hard-and-fast positions in a political (or scientific) debate need to be acquainted with at LEAST the BASICS of general research. So, I found Watts' sites at http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/ and http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm Now, I'm not a meteorologist, but I can read plain English and look at pictures of weather stations, and I can read the instructions for placing such stations, and note the discrepancies (can I use a big word like that, or do I need to "tweek" my prose for you???).

GACopperhead
6
Points
GACopperhead 05/13/09 - 03:20 pm
0
0
I'm glad we will continue our

I'm glad we will continue our efforts to stop our influence on warming in spite of you suicidal idiots.

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 03:24 pm
0
0
You ask yourself, "what would

You ask yourself, "what would be a scientist's or academic's motivation to lie about or misrepresent data?" Consider the symbiosis between science and politics. Scientists get grant money from government agencies. Think about what you know about human nature: if a topic is complex enough (say, the climate of the entire planet) that it generates huge amounts of data incomprehensible to the average person, and easily manipulated, then do you, as manager of funds for a govt agency, fund research that INCREASES the power and influence of your agency, or do you fund research that DECREASES its power and influence? Do you sign up people whose connection to actual meteorology, climatology and/or astrophysics is, shall we say, tangential, and who will apply rigorous scientific principles to the data they find, or do you find people who will manipulate the data so as to produce the "hockey stick" graph that "proves" what you need to prove? http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ As a scientist who also needs to eat and support your family, do you persist in pointing out the truth, or do you accede to a position that, after all, MIGHT be true, in order to get the grant?

southernguy08
578
Points
southernguy08 05/13/09 - 03:25 pm
0
0
Millions of people out of
Unpublished

Millions of people out of work, our national debt just trippled by this idiot president, global terrorism and nuclear destruction, but WILLISTON knows the real danger in our world, the global warming threat to polar bears. Congratulations WILLISTON, you just outdid your usual stupidity!

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 03:29 pm
0
0
And, again, please tell me,

And, again, please tell me, why is it that those who purport to be "saving the planet" invariably support measures that exempt the largest polluters on the planet (China/India), punish the manufacturing base that gets, worldwide, the HIGHEST production per energy unit (the U.S.), will tax SPECIFICALLY those you claim to be trying to "protect," and will do NOTHING to lower any temperatures, anywhere, since the largest impact on temperature is (surprise!) the sun. I've asked the question about Mars' ice caps a hundred times in these fora; now it's YOUR turn to ask, "why don't the Great Protectors of All Humanity Everywhere ever ANSWER that question?" Why is the answer ALWAYS a tax on regular folks, a limit on regular folks' options, government intrusion on individual rights? Why is CA proposing control modules on all new construction while President Obama turned the Oval Office into a hothouse all winter long? Why is Al Gore proposing that we require all kinds of businesses to buy carbon offsets? Why don't any of you AGW believers ever note the fact that Al Gore OWNS the company from which he buys his carbon credits?

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 03:37 pm
0
0
You know, you guys [filtered word] and

You know, you guys [filtered word] and moan and say I write too much. It's because we keep having to cover the SAME ground with you people. "None is so blind as they who refuse to see" I guess...I don't know. I mean, do you think people make this stuff up? There's a real pile of cash to made by jumping on the AGW bandwagon...why would somebody go to the trouble of driving around and taking pictures of surface temp stations with lightbulbs inside the cabinets, surface stations in jetwash zones, stations in the middle of acres of asphalt? Why would mathematicians look at the data analysis used to produce Gore's "hockey stick," demonstrate that the analysis is flawed, and publish their findings, when they could get a big ol' grant by saying that they "believe"? And why didn't Mann and his coauthors defend their "hockey stick"? Doesn't that suggest that they know it was a crock? They've had five years! Why is dingbat williston STILL seeing "documentaries" about endangered polar bears, over a YEAR after ScienceDaily (hardly a conservative group) published the findings about polar bear populations? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 03:42 pm
0
0
Don't get me wrong...I'm

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy to continue the debate and learn whatever new information is out there, but I am getting worn out by the ignorant socialists pushing a purely POLITICAL agenda that has NOTHING to do with science. It is as if, on this ONE issue, "the debate is over, the science is settled." You're kidding me. The science is not settled when the topic is, "how does aspirin work?" But you think that three flawed computer models and a set of phony figures can accurately describe and predict CLIMATE? Jesus...no wonder people call it a "religion"...takes a huge leap of faith to believe that there is nothing left to learn about a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Takes an even bigger leap of faith to believe that human activity is more powerful than THE SUN. And it takes the sort of commitment found only in Jonestown to believe that Mars' ice mass is changing in response to the Sun, but Earth's is changing because ol' johnsmith doesn't drive a Prius. And, truly, it is indescribable, the faith required to believe BOTH that fossil fuels are the culprit, AND that we have to block nuclear power. That, to me, is truly incomprehensible...

drumbeater1
1
Points
drumbeater1 05/13/09 - 04:15 pm
0
0
you referenced a web site

you referenced a web site called "watts" up with that ???
i get it.
"nuff wrote
'nuff read
'nuff said

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 04:30 pm
0
0
Drum, the guy's name is

Drum, the guy's name is Watts. He's a meteorologist. Ok, let me get this straight...you won't click on a link because you...don't like the name of the site...? Wow, you must be dumber than I thought...

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 04:33 pm
0
0
Try www.surfacestations.org

Try www.surfacestations.org Is that a more acceptable site for you? Does it matter? Jesus...if there's any site funnier than nyt.com, I'd like to know where it is... :::stamping little liberal feet on the ground and throwing a tantrum::: "We are THERIOUTH JOURNALISTHTTH!! It'th time all you meanieth out there thtarted taking uth theriouthly!!!"

dont live there anymore
2
Points
dont live there anymore 05/13/09 - 06:43 pm
0
0
Do like the polar bears.

Do like the polar bears. Survive and reproduce despite the "global warming" . Williston they are not dying they adapting. Go to Alaska and see for yourself. You are not going to like this but I do not believe saving the polar bears should take priority of our economy and human being's health. "jonny" I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our tax money will be going to support those who are not really concerned about global warming.

I also agree that we should each try to save our resources as best we can, but living in a tent in the wilderness will not do it. Neither will riding a bicycle everywhere.

willistontownsc
55
Points
willistontownsc 05/13/09 - 07:31 pm
0
0
How stupid can southernguy

How stupid can southernguy and the other global warming skeptics be? Our out-of-control procreation and our refusal to recycle are causing global warming. Not to mention that we are blatantly dumping Hg into our oceans, our rivers, our creeks, and our lakes. Polar bears are not adapting, they are dying. They only live on ice caps, not land like we do. Economic health should not be used as an excuse for us just going about our business as usual. When the environment is destroyed, we will not be able to breathe anymore since there will not be any oxygen for us to exhale. Believe it or not, we CANNOT survive without plant species.

overburdened_taxpayer
117
Points
overburdened_taxpayer 05/13/09 - 07:33 pm
0
0
If Al Gore and the Hollywood

If Al Gore and the Hollywood types were really so concerned about global warming they wouldn't live in houses with 20 to 30 rooms for 5 people living in the house. Taking limo's to awards ceremonies, taking private jets all over, etc etc etc. They love to tell the rest of us how to live while they keep the lifestlye they have become accustomed to. It's funny that back in the late 60's and early 70's that we were headed for an ice age and now the ice age is melting. If you look at half of the university weather stations that they use for the statistics you will find that the temperature stations are located on or near asphalt and we all know how asphalt absorbs heat so it is not reflected on the temperature gauges or near HVAC units that do the same as asphalt. Yeah there is a human reason for belief in global warming and it is called stupidity.

overburdened_taxpayer
117
Points
overburdened_taxpayer 05/13/09 - 07:40 pm
0
0
Willi, have you been to

Willi, have you been to Alaska and done a headcount study of polar bears or are you taking the word of others again? It amazes me what you people take for fact without ever doing your own research. Want to recycle? It takes more energy to recycle something than to make new products. And since that is the case then recycling causes more air pollution and not recycling causes more trash. Please DO NOT RECYCLE. I would rather my grandkids walk on garbage than breath it in.

KSL
187166
Points
KSL 05/13/09 - 07:55 pm
0
0
Willi, I don't think

Willi, I don't think Caucasian procreation is out of control here in America or in Europe, for that matter. There are definitely other races who are over producing. Do you really want to go there?

used2Bjonny
1
Points
used2Bjonny 05/13/09 - 08:11 pm
0
0
"Not to mention that we are

"Not to mention that we are blatantly dumping Hg into our oceans, our rivers, our creeks, and our lakes." Now, THERE you have an issue. Please note that corporations are only able to do that b/c government establishes "acceptable" mercury levels... But, hey, government is the answer! "Polar bears are not adapting, they are dying. They only live on ice caps, not land like we do." Jesus, williston, is it that you are not capable of reading anything other than huffpo/kos, or is it that you cannot be bothered? Here is the link I posted earlier today: "over a YEAR after ScienceDaily (hardly a conservative group) published the findings about polar bear populations? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm " ScienceDaily, btw, is a very respected (i.e. very left-wing) site. They support your anthropogenic global warming religion, willy, but the editorial board of SD is too committed to publishing the real science to ignore something as obvious as polar bear population pressure (not decline, but increase, fyi) causing an increase in polar bear attacks on human beings. They're about as "endangered" as coyotes in Los Angeles...

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

Keg Creek victim identified

Columbia County authorities have identified a Crawford, Ga., man who died after plunging a car into Keg Creek and divers are on the scene to begin searching for a second person who might have been ...
Search Augusta jobs