Are global warming alarmist deliberatly trying to scare people by trumping up consequences of GW?

I read the article. It's by Richard Lindzen. "Lindzen has no testable theory, no data, and no papers explaining the current temperature trend. Despite this he still manages to get his opinions published in the mainstream media as well as testifying in from of Congress on the oil companies dime." http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm "Lindzen received $2500 a day from oil and coal interests for his services.1,2, 3 His article "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC." If one man's opinion counts, I'll see Richard Lindzen and raise Stephen Hawking.

I'm not sure how one can "not agree" that man is causing global warming, but I thought this was too ridiculous not to say anything. For the sake of argument, I prefer the term "climate change" because I feel that it is more accurate. I have a degree in Environmental Science. One of the most important things that you learn when you are majoring in a science is to think critically of anything that you read. I would like to know who/what this guys sources are because they pretty much contradict everything that I learned in college. I will admit that there are lot of things that haven't happened yet and there is a lot of extrapolation of data, but that is also kind of the point. Regardless of whether scientists are exactly right, there is plenty of evidence showing that what we are doing to the earth is detrimental. A great example is smog. Smog happens in low lying, heavily populated areas and is caused by car emissions. Smog is pretty toxic and completely man made. Smog is the reason that there are ozone warnings on very hot days in the summer. For the record, it IS true that sea level is rising significantly in low lying islands. There have been plenty of cases already of people having to leave their homes. It IS true that the polar ice caps are melting. It IS true that there are places in Northern Russia that are starting to melt and release even more methane in to the atmosphere. It IS true that there are glaciers that are visibly melting. So, like I said, I don't know what this guys sources are, but you can find scientific evidence to support anything that you want to if you look hard enough. The fact is that man is having a profound a effect on the climate, there is proof of that. We may be in a warming trend anyway and are just making it worse, but I really don't see how that should sway anyone's opinion either way. Regardless of the reason it is still atleast partially our fault. Lastly, to address the issue of warmer temperatures. I don't really see how India producing more food is a good thing. I wasn't hearing about starving children in India before that. However I have been hearing about water shortages and other overpopulation issues. I don't think that India being able to feed even more mouths is a good thing in a country that is already overpopulated. On a side note, it is widely accepted that warmer temperatures mean more hurricanes and more severe hurricanes. I don't think that anyone would say that is a good thing.

yes... look into the club of rome as well as the man himself, henry kissinger.

yes

It's amazing the hatchet job being done on Lindzen by people on this forum with considerably less science background. Dana - claiming that a Meteorologist is not a climatologist...bonehead! He's an atmospheric physicist who teaches meteorology. I guess that trumps your astrophysics background. At least he is active in his field of training. And for all you science numbskulls, climatology is just another branch of atmospheric science (ie - you will find many atmospheric physicists who work as climatologists.)

To get people to rally behind the cause, it has always been necessary to overstate the problem and understate the solution. That way you get people to change slowly because it is a human behavior to resist large-scale change. Do you really believe that changing our lightbulbs, driving slightly less and by recycling that we will reverse the current trend? If so do just a minor amount of research. 75% of home energy use is heating, air conditioning, and hot water. Unless this energy is all made with solar, wind, and hydro (or *environmental shiver* nuclear), lightbulbs aren't going to change this. The current G8 calls for a reduction of ONE HALF of an old level of CO2 output and says IF we do that, it only REDUCES global climate change by 1F (instead of 7 we get 6 degrees). Man is causing the change in CO2 production--but through population and increasing standard of living--not just because of fossil fuels and coal.

Who is this mister Lindzen ??? look at: exxonsecrets.org I am not an alarmist, I am a global warming mitigator. The consequences of global warming have been assessed by the very reputable Stern Report which did not get critics appearantly from skeptics... maybe they didn´t read this publication and prefer youtube movies... But there is a good news for them: he wrote an executive summary

I think industry emissions has a small if no real effect on the climate. I have seen several studies that only go back several hundred years using tree core samples then stop because the data they are getting does not match there conclusion. The one CO2 emitter I have not seen in any study is the CO2 humans exhale every time they breath. Next are they going to tell use we can not breath? I think it is more a soap box for people to stand on and work the crowd for money.

I read the article. The answer is no. First off, it's an opinion article written by a Meteorologist. Meteorologists have no education in climatology. Secondly, it just relies on the same old junk - there's no 'ideal climate', slightly hotter might be better, climate models are just models and he doesn't trust them, etc. etc. Here is a variety of climate model projections: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Predictions_png The lower projections assume that we've reduced our CO2 emissions dramatically and have at least a 2°C average global temperature increase. The higher ones assume we continue to increase our CO2 output and have up to an average 5°C temperature increase (7°C over land). I don't think these scenarios factor in the possibility of feedbacks, which would amplify the temperature increases. The author ignores the fact that global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate. He points out that temperatures aren't as hot as we expect as if it's a good thing, missing the point that things could get much, much worse if we reach a tipping point where CO2 sinks become CO2 feedbacks. Basically it's a very amateurish opinion piece.