Is Global Warming Legit?

The Debate of the Century

Come Out to the Debate at the Advanced Ideas Center

Four of the most respected modern day scientists are coming out to settle question that has been irking society for years: "Are Mainstream Views on Global Warming Legit?"
The "No" side will consist of Russian astrophysicist Khabibullo Abdusamatov and American astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas. Abdusamatov is of the belief that global warming is caused, not by increased carbon in the atmosphere, but by increased amount of solar radiation. Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy-almost throughout the last century-growth in its intensity." Baliunas thinks that the earth is not even being warmed at all and even wrote in an essay: "But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case... measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident." These scientist are clearly against the idea that there is extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is warming the earth.
The "Yes" side will be represented by James Hansen, a atmospheric physicist at the University of Columbia and geologist and oceanographer Roger Revelle. Hansen is under the impression that the coal industry is producing the most global-warming-causing pollution. He, unlike many, has a solution to the problem:The solution [to climate change] has to be a rising price on carbon and then the really dirty fuels like tar sands would fall on the table very quickly. They make no sense at all if you look at it from an economic-wide perspective. If we would simply put a fee on carbon - you would collect from the fossil fuel companies at the source (the domestic mines or the ports of entry) and then distribute that money to the public, an equal amount to all legal residents, that would begin to make the prices honest. And that's what the economy needs in order to be most efficient. Right now the external costs of fossil fuels are borne completely by the public. If your child gets asthma, you pay the bill, the fossil fuel company doesn't. What we need is to make the system honest." Revelle was one of the first to wonder about the greenhouse effect. He even wrote a paper about it in 1957! Revelle has a factor, the 'Revelle Factor' named after him. The 'Revelle Factor' is the resistance from the ocean to take in CO2.
Four great scientists will be coming out to this debate and we are sure that everybody will come out knowing way more about our earth, and specifically, global warming.