TED Conversations

Jake Maddox

Field Service Engineer,


This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Global Warming Caused by Human Impact is Negligible

Global warming. The term evokes visions of scorching global temperatures, droughts of biblical proportions, deserts forming on an epic scale, and death for mankind. And yet synonymous with the term is that humans are solely responsible for this cataclysm. But is this really the case? The fact is, most people are simply not well enough informed on the subject or have not looked closely at the historical evidence. They are simply left to being persuaded by the negative dogma surrounding the subject that is being perpetuated by those with their own political agendas.....sorry Mr. Gore. The earth is a very dynamic planet, sure it may seem very static and unwavering, but you must think beyond your frame of reference. Our short lives are very insignificant compared to the life cycle of the earth. Ice core data taken from Antarctica reveal that for as long as the records go back, nearly 800,000 years, that the earth has experienced a cyclic pattern or warming and cooling that revolves on a 100,000 year cycle. We are currently in what is known as an interglacial period which is why the glaciers are receeding. In fact, they have been receeding for at least the last 15,000 years, well before human influence and the burning of fossil fuels. Accordng to the latest core samples taken from the sea floor under the Antarctic ice shelf, the glaciers have to melt much more to return to levels that were seen in previous interglacial periods. In February 2013, global warming activists were stunned by the retreat of one of their former UN scientists. Top Swedish Climate Scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of the UN IPCC, declared CO2”s “heating effect is logarithmic: the higher the concentration is, the smaller the effect of a further increase.” So let us try and mitigate our influence upon the earth the best we can, but most importantly, we need to accept that the earth's climate does and will change. Let us prepare for how we will deal with these natural changes when they occur

Topics: global warming

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 26 2013: Lol no. Although I see how you could make that assumption. FSE for security, I work on X-ray equipment at Denver International Airport. Again, I don't think we should continue burning fossil fuels, I just don't agree with climate predictions based on current CO2 levels.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Jun 26 2013: Lol, not those machines LaMar. I service the machines that scan your checked baggage and the machines that the TSA use to check you or your bag for trace explosives.
      • thumb
        Jul 1 2013: So YOU are the guy who makes it possible for the TSA to X-ray my underwear! No wonder Al Qada want it that way! Makes sense to me!

        Jake, I like the way you have set up this debate. This creature (thread) has gotten a good start & you are keeping it focused. I admire that. You are pointing out inconsistencies in the data & that works. But scientists cite the work of other scientists. They push each other around based upon the data. Then they go back & do more research. Scientists like to 1) be correct & 2) win debates & 3) win the Nobel Prize because they were right all along & saved the world.

        Links do help, they work as citations to your data & are harder to discount or argue with. If you link to a noted climate scientist, that scientist is much harder to argue with. A climate scientist talking about how 'Climate Change is NOT real!' & how I should NOT believe in it - I would find that persuasive. But the data has to be from a science journal & not Fox News.

        If you look at my comments above, I am confident that the scientists will ultimately win this debate. They just have to get their act together & agree. Economists are Economic Scientists. When they all reach the same consensus, that means the science leaves no room for the Politicians to argue about it. As I see it, that's what the economists did over the TARP debate. On TARP, the overwhelming consensus seemed to be: "Were screwed for now, but if we don't do TARP - we might be dead as far as the economy goes!" So they acted.

        Comments invited here & below - teach me something, guys!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.