Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, December 25, 2006
Jeff Jacoby :: Townhall.com Columnist
Climate of Fear
by Jeff Jacoby
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Remember The Twilight Zone? Back in 1961, Rod Serling wrote an episode that was set in New York City amid rampant global warming. Somehow the Earth's orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun. "This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction. "Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history, and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."

The story revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter, their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams and passes out. Then comes the "Twilight Zone" twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning *away* from the sun. The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly deep-freeze. Fade to credits.

Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up, or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.

Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.

Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's award-winning analysis of global *cooling* in 1974: "There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest. . . . It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire than that, either.

Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented report by the Business & Media Institute, an arm of the Media Research Center. Climate-change alarmism, the report shows, is at least a century old. A few examples:

"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again," asserted a New York Times headline in February 1895. Worrisome if true, but just seven years later, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures worldwide. By 1923, though, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on Page 1.

So it was curtains for the Canadians? Er, not quite. In 1953, The New York Times reported that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in The Cooling, his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.

Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder whether any of them are.

Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the public say they worry "a great deal" about it.

Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul Ehrlich grew rich writing jeremiads with such titles as The Population Explosion and The Population Bomb, which predicted the imminent deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum -- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating "nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still, abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a century.

"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Mencken was writing in 1920, but some things never change.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com. href="http://www.townhall.com/Secure/Signup.aspx">Sign up today

Be the first to read Jeff Jacoby's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

comments on "we shouldn't even be here"
I couldn’t resist commenting on the statements made recently by ‘don’t tread on me’:

“Fact is, if a little extra carbon dioxide was all it took to tip some delicate balance and turn Earth into another Venus, it would have happened from day 1, long before we or any "advanced" life forms existed to drive SUV's. Astronomers/astrophysicists who specialize in the study of bodies of matter in space will tell you carbon dioxide is more natural to a planet's atmosphere than oxygen. Earth only has free oxygen in its atmosphere because for something like 1-1/2 billion years primitive algea covering the oceans had been steadily converting CO2 into oxygen until the balance tipped.”

The Earth was never like Venus nor will it ever be. However, before life began, the CO2 concentration was much higher and the temperature was too. If you count the early Earth’s atmosphere, then 3 out of 4 solid bodies known to have atmospheres are mainly CO2: Venus, Earth, and Mars. Titan’s is mainly hydrocarbons. We have no data on the atmospheres of planets outside our solar system.


“Venus, BTW, is about 64% as far from the Sun as Earth. Therefore, it gets almost 90% more sunlight energy per unit area. Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere was caused by, rather than the cause of, its high temperature, because liquid water cannot exist on its surface. So don't let anybody snow you about Earth-might-become-Venus; there is that critically important difference.”

See my comment above- you can stop worrying Earth will become like Venus. I’m glad you solved the mystery of the evolution of Venus’ atmosphere! (I also liked the comment about ‘snowing’ folks!).


“Earth's oceans are in fact a vast reservior of carbon dioxide. Water at a given temperature and pressure will dissolve a certain amount of carbon dioxide. The higher the temperature, the less carbon dioxide (or any other gas) dissolves in water; the excess will come out of solution into the atmosphere. Try opening two cans of beer or soda pop (carbon dioxide dissolved in water) and putting one in the fridge, and keeping the other out. Which one goes flat 1st?”

Yes indeed temperature affects the concentration of CO2 in the ocean. So does the atmospheric concentration of CO2- the more there is in the atmosphere, the more there will be in the ocean, at equilibrium. By the way, what you describe is a positive feedback situation- the warmer the ocean, the more CO2 it releases to the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere more, etc.


“Variations in the atmospheric temperature for ANY reason (such as variations in sunlight) will cause water temperatures to change, in turn causing carbon dioxide to be taken up or released from the oceans, in turn affecting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The much-ballyhooed ice core evidence correlating past temperatures with CO2 concentration was called into question when it was noted that the CO2 concentrations seemed to lag behind, rather than lead, the temperature changes. This would suggest CO2 levels were caused by, rather than causing, temperatures.”

This is an area of research and is indeed puzzling. You may be right and it may be an effect of the above feedback.


“There are a number of naturally occurring gases with much more powerful "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide, such as - Water vapor! We can't do a DARN THING about water vapor in the atmosphere, because we have these large exposed surfaces of water, called "oceans," that release or absorb water vapor depending on the air temperature.”

You forgot methane, another greenhouse gas more powerful than CO2. And another one we can’t do much about. Water vapor and methane are factored into the climate models along with CO2. CO2 has a smaller effect, but it’s one we can do something about.


“I have to be suspicious, to say the least, when there is such a transparent effort to make a dogma out of a questionable theory that JUST SO HAPPENS to rationalize a pre-existing extreme green-communist policy agenda and a quantum leap in the size and scope of government.”

Please continue to be suspicious, but also inform yourself by reading the results of the work scientists are doing to try to understand this complex system. There is no perfect model, much less ‘dogma’, but all the models agree that adding a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere will cause changes.

skeptic:


a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

What are we skeptics skeptical about? First, we do not question whether the earth, on average, is warming - 0.6 degrees C in the last century.

What we are skeptical about are, inter alia:

1. That greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally human-emitted CO2, are the cause of the warming, that is, that this particular warming trend is man-caused, or "anthropogenic";

2. That the goodness or badness of the warming is knowable.

3. That, assuming it is bad and that we caused it and can actually do something to stop it, we should stop or reduce the activities we do in order to reduce the GHGs, hence the warming.

4. That the debate is over.

But we are constructive skeptics. We generally agree that, in order:

1. That we should discover what causes climates to change, both locally and worldwide.

2. That where warming is beneficial we should encourage voluntary activities that will help those for whom the warming is harmful.

3. That we should continue to use what Julian Simon called "the ultimate resource" - our noggins - and go to the free marketplace of goods and ideas to find solutions to the sometimes perplexing problems and exploit opportunities that we see in that ever changing market. In my opinion, this generation and allocation of intellectual and material capital will be best spent in mitigating adverse effects of global warming, not in implementing command-and-control regulations to inhibit our activities. In short, economic growth, not environmentalist growth.

4. That the debate should rage on. And may the best model win.

By the way, what does your weatherperson say the weather will be like tomorrow?

Cozy in warmth,
Tim Cranston

After 3 decades of science writing ...
Hello Jeff, I've been a science writer for 3 decades and have an alternate view of what you've presented here. You'll find my post here: http://www.earthsky.org/blog/50872/climate-of-fear-or-climate-of-folly

I really enjoyed your reference to the Twilight Zone! I saw that episode, too, and have used it in my own writing in speaking of global warming.

All the best,
Deborah Byrd
http://www.earthsky.org/

We Shouldn't Even Be Here
Fact is, if a little extra carbon dioxide was all it took to tip some delicate balance and turn Earth into another Venus, it would have happened from day 1, long before we or any "advanced" life forms existed to drive SUV's. Astronomers/astrophysicists who specialize in the study of bodies of matter in space will tell you carbon dioxide is more natural to a planet's atmosphere than oxygen. Earth only has free oxygen in its atmosphere because for something like 1-1/2 billion years primitive algea covering the oceans had been steadily converting CO2 into oxygen until the balance tipped.

Venus, BTW, is about 64% as far from the Sun as Earth. Therefore, it gets almost 90% more sunlight energy per unit area. Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere was caused by, rather than the cause of, its high temperature, because liquid water cannot exist on its surface. So don't let anybody snow you about Earth-might-become-Venus; there is that critically important difference.

Earth's oceans are in fact a vast reservior of carbon dioxide. Water at a given temperature and pressure will dissolve a certain amount of carbon dioxide. The higher the temperature, the less carbon dioxide (or any other gas) dissolves in water; the excess will come out of solution into the atmosphere. Try opening two cans of beer or soda pop (carbon dioxide dissolved in water) and putting one in the fridge, and keeping the other out. Which one goes flat 1st?

Variations in the atmospheric temperature for ANY reason (such as variations in sunlight) will cause water temperatures to change, in turn causing carbon dioxide to be taken up or released from the oceans, in turn affecting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The much-ballyhooed ice core evidence correlating past temperatures with CO2 concentration was called into question when it was noted that the CO2 concentrations seemed to lag behind, rather than lead, the temperature changes. This would suggest CO2 levels were caused by, rather than causing, temperatures.

There are a number of naturally occurring gases with much more powerful "greenhouse effect" than carbon dioxide, such as - Water vapor! We can't do a DARN THING about water vapor in the atmosphere, because we have these large exposed surfaces of water, called "oceans," that release or absorb water vapor depending on the air temperature.

I have to be suspicious, to say the least, when there is such a transparent effort to make a dogma out of a questionable theory that JUST SO HAPPENS to rationalize a pre-existing extreme green-communist policy agenda and a quantum leap in the size and scope of government.

CO2
CO2 is self-correcting. If there is a higher level of CO2 there will be more plants and bigger plants which will remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Ask people with green houses about this and they will tell you that they add CO2 to their greenhouses to get bigger, better plants to go faster.

DON'T WORRY! God made the universe and I'm sure that He knows what is happening and has a mechanism already in place to make sure that nothing happens until He is ready for it to happen. I'm not against trying to preserve our evironment if it can be done at a reasonable cost and without governmental mandates that take away the freedom of the American people. I believe that recycling is a good thing to do and the way it is done in my city is based on a voluntary basis. I recycle my glass, plastic, and metal items through the city program, but I recycle my own aluminum. I can't accumulate enough of the other items to make it worthwhile for me or for any company to personally recycle those items. I am able to do so with the aluminum, although the $$ are not huge. I usually get a bit more that $10.00 when I go to the recycling center with the aluminum.

Why worry!!!
None of us really knows if the oceans will rise 1" or the temps. will rise 1 degree in the next 1,00 years and personally I don't give a damn. A thousand years from now the earth, if it still exits will probably be a vast toxic wasteland due to Jimmy Carter's favorite jihad monkey.

Tom Lehrer-Think
The following thoughts by Loyal Democrat illustrate two important principles.

"Proving a theory takes up valuable time. . ." and "Those that argue man-made global warming is a reality are people that care about the planet, and have no ulterior motives for making their case other than a concern for nature. Conversely, those that say man-made global warming is a myth are members of industry, the disgusting capitalists that stand to make undeserved profit if the preventive measures are not enforced."

1. Good intentions are more important than facts. (For now, we'll leave out their role in paving the road to Hell.)

2. Capitalists are "disgusting" agents of a demonic class called "members of industry."

Until now, I stupidly thought that people who actually make things were ingenious, even useful to society. I guess I've been a dupe to use things like electrically-powered devices, steel machines and houses with floors under them and roofs over them. As soon as I gather the gumption, I'll move out of my house into a hollow log and live off nuts and grubs like the raccoons.

Whew! Glad I've seen the light. Now I realize finger-pointing and blaming are more important than actually doing anything. When it comes to industry, never mind the dazzling array of capitalist-inspired inventions over the last couple of centuries that have improved the lives of billions. The invention of financial systems that allow nitwits and ingrates to survive on the leavings of the cognoscenti are not the least among them.

The thought process revealed by Loyal Democrat reminds me of a line from a 1960's Tom Lehrer song named New Math. My recollection is: "The most important thing is to understand what you're doing, rather than to get the right answer."

GunnyG
For sure its hard to imagine anyone of those *#@#&%'s ever held down a job.

Savage99
I'm sure that their doting parents are turning a blind eye to it like they've done all of their lives.

I myself, wonder HOW MANY of those liberal anti-establishment kids are busy living on trust funds from mommy and daddy!?

The Earth is going thru Global Cooling
Don't dispute it. It's a fact. Don't let mistakes made in the past like the theory of Global Warming get in the way of undisputable evidence of this cooling since 1974.
It's cooling bacause of overpopulation. Too many people using up all the heat.

You see, being angry makes a person's temperature near the skin surface rise which uses up more of the body's energy. So hot people make global cooling. The body's resources need to be replenished sooner because of angry people and mother earth is deprived of more natural resources. These are resources that nature would use to heat the earth instead of us using it to heat our faces.

After intense study beginning in 1980, it was discovered that the angriest among us were liberal leaning citizens upset with the Republican president at the time (Ronald Reagan). Since then, liberals have all but used up the those natural resources.

Thus, a shift is hopefully coming. The conservatives should be getting angry now. This shift to the right will tilt the earth just enough to forever offset the cooling we are experiencing.

Other alternative solutions would be multiple nuclear explosions in the area we refer to as the Middle East.

I wanted to be an actor when I was young so I am eminently qualified to speak on this subject (for a hefty fee).


A Fine Ironic Mind
Being a big fan of irony and satire to make important points myself, I always enjoy Loyal Democrat's posts. LD exposes the thinking of the Left so spot-on I find myself wishing I'd written it.

"The experts cannot produce solutions that will save us if they are continuously compelled to defend their opinions and predictions. There comes a time when we have to accept an opinion for our own good and let those that wish to help us have unfettered control over the decisions that need to be made, even if the facts appear to be disputable on the surface. Proving a theory takes up valuable time, especially since there is an easier way to determine just who is actually right. By considering the motivation behind the sources of the pro and con arguments, it is easy to see just who we should actually believe. Those that argue man-made global warming is a reality are people that care about the planet, and they have no ulterior motives for making their case other than a concern for nature. Conversely, those that say man-made global warming is a myth are members of industry, the disgusting capitalists that stand to make undeserved financial profit if the preventative measures are not enforced...."

Isn't that EXACTLY how the debate has been framed since Day 1? Oh, we can't afford the time to find out if it's actually true, it'll be too late, we gotta have this knee-jerk reaction right now. Well I've been listening to this kind of bovine scat since the AGW hypothesis came along in the late '80's, & we're still OK, and the science gets murkier rather than clearer. And we haven't burnt up either, like they said we would by now.

Of course what they leave out & discount completely is the motivation of the proponents to become (or have their friends become) the head honchos and big cheeses that run all our lives in detail, and decide who can have what. That never gets mentioned or considered. Why do you think government skews the grants and motivations toward pro-AGW, and the pop media shamelessly slants its "news reporting" pro-AGW?

oops
Spilled my tea. Those, not hose

GunnyG
Just got back from your site. hose pix leave me shaking my head, alright. The behaviour of those poor self-hating kids is enough to make you cry. How do you suppose their parents feel?

"Clamorous to be Led to Safety"
The main difference between today's climate alarmism and that of previous decades, is that now the political class and its allies have latched onto an alleged cause - artificial emissions of carbon dioxide (a naturally occurring gas) by industrialized society to produce energy, and heat for processing materials - that suggests a solution ambitious pols and aspiring dictators can really get enthusiastic about.

The logic of the carbon dioxide anthrogenic global warming hypothesis leads directly to universal, permanent, restrictive energy rationing, which would impact EVERYTHING ordinary people do or have. Treaties such as the "Kyoto Accord" with this ostensible object will lead ultimately to a TOTALITARIAN WORLD GOVERNMENT to implement it. Once you understand that connection, it's not hard to see why the persistent big scaremongering push by "the Establishment" to establish AGW as dogma regardless of the actual science, which remains dubious at best.

I'm sorry, I hear very few candidates, including Al Gore in 2000, taking any kind of public stand whatsoever during their campaigns. I hear even fewer advocating serious development of energy sources that don't generate CO2, such as nuclear or intensive satellite-based solar, but instead want to mumble vaguely and evasively about "conservation" (i.e. rationing) and unrealistic expectations of wind and earth-based solar power, not to mention the porky non-alternatives of ethanol and hydrogen.

That is why this is such a critically important issue on which candidates need to be forced to take a stand durng election campaigns. We don't need to elect representatives based on bland vague platitudes, who when elected figure they have a specific mandate to give, for example, the EPA or the UN regulatory control over our cars and thermostats in the name of a dubious climate theory.

Loyal Democrat
posted that, "Solutions to our current problems will come quicker if we rein in the capitalists by outlawing any research
that disputes the fact that global warming is caused by man."

LD, change your name to "Loyal Socialist". You advocate that the US Congress pass a law that makes scientific research a federal crime if it doesn't support anthropogenic global warming.

That makes as much sense as . . .outlawing peer pressure.

(Unless, of course, your post is bogus and you're simply taking the green socialists' argument ad absurdum.)

More comments from scientists
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.

Savage99
"Despite a Jewish upbringing, libgdman hasn't registered any qualms. He doesn't seem to notice the hundreds of pages of data, quotes by muslim leaders, and thousands dead that would seem to indicate lots of muslims don't like israel very much."

Check my blog for a pic of Jews for a FREE Palestine.

They're being suicide bombed daily and they're protesting FOR Palestinians!?

WTF over. Oi vey!

FreeOpter
Thank you for a great post. More great info on nearterm global climate trends than i've seen in months. The book "The Ice Age" is the best account of long term climate factors i've run into. All the scholarly information i've run into supports one another, and all the calm voices lead one to discount the anecdotes, the short term data, the exclusion of data, the studied ignorance of opposing opinions, the shaky non-statistics that characterize those that see global warming as a current threat.

voice_of_reason 12/25/2006 7:12 AM
>>>>
Isn't it funny how one's choice of political parties can form one's opinion on a scientific issue? Actually, there is no place for OPINION in scientific matters. And, nor is the 'collective opinion' of the public particularly significant. The alarmism of groups of scientists can also be disregarded, since it usually amounts to nothing more than fashionable GroupThink.
>>>>

v.o.r. – I think you have it backwards. It is not our choice of political parties that forms our opinions on any issues; it is our opinions on issues in general that lead us to choose a political party.

Except for this point I agree with your post.

GW didn't cause GW
SUV drivers relax! It's a game of percentages:
A recent UN report says that that greenhouse gases produced by cows is 18% of
total as opposed to the 6% produced by American cars. BUT these percentage calculations exclude naturally occurring water vapor. Water vapor is practically 100% of natural origin and constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, leaving only 5% for CO2 and other natural and man made emissions. Many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately?) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Global warming is not likely to cause the sea levels to rise:
The sea ice IS melting - around the margins-- but if ALL the sea ice melted, the world sea levels would not rise even one inch. The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice onEarth. It is mostly "land ice", and contains 30 million cubic km of ice, or around 90 percent of the fresh water on the Earth's surface. This inland ice sheet has been increasing for the past 20 years. Global warming in the southern hemisphere will result in transporting more moisture to Antarctica and result in formation of more ice and thus counteract rising sea levels somewhat. A similar situation in the Arctic: The Greenland ice sheet is melting on the margins but there is a net gain of 11 cubic kilometers of ice inland in the last decade. (NASA data).

Under these dynamics, the biggest problem is the reduced salinity of the sea and it's effect on the thermohaline circulation: e.g., stalling of the Gulf Stream could cause another ice age. These observations are only of one or two recent decades. With so many variables and unknowns, the long term outcome is too uncertain to predict. But one thing is certain: In the "long term" we are all dead!
----------------------

Try this website


60 scientists doubt validity of global warming, Russian scientists predict cooling... not everybody agrees

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

If alarmism sells, then
If alarmism sells, why isn't anyone concerned about the shrinking ice caps on Mars?

MyOpine
Sounds like some kind of wier theory to me.

Goshawk
Like you i scroll past the one string violin players. They are so predictable, no provocative ideas or new slants on a topic. Black Knight sees only racism, Tanabear sees only neocons (whatever they are) They post only to "win" some argument taking place in their head. Lgm is usually short, and unpredictble for a leftie. That one i mentioned just caught my eye. He's not stupid, but some quite intelligent people seem to use their brainpower to continue delusions. Most of them come around when they have to. The developed world shelters the left from the results of their delusions, sometimes for like 25 years. Then comes another dustup and reality wins again.

Tigerrick
You understand how ocean currents control weather.
You understand how the level & flow of water through rivers and irrigation canals is controled by boards in wiers?

Why can't the World's weather be controled by a system of submarine wiers?

Hows that for a brain teaser?

Just wanted to mention
that Fortune, the Chicago Tribune, and the New York Times are not scientific publications subject to peer review. Does anyone know of a paper on modern global cooling that has passed peer review? Because over 700 articles on anthropogenic global warming have.

Tigerrick, Steve
Tigerrick
Good post, and one going in the direction being studied by people who are informed and educated in this area. I just read "The Ice Age", a short easily understood book by a man and wife team of scientists. They go into the role of ocean currents and the enormous energies involved. More basic was their explanation of the effects of the precession of the earth's axis, and the constantly altering shape of the earth's orbit as it is perturbed by other planets. Techtonic plate movements which alter those sea currents you are aware of have a slow but powerful effect. hey mention some interesting weather data from over the past few million years. Right now, the earth sea level is about 6 feet below the average level over the last 4 million years. They speculate that this could be the only time in the history of the earth that there are ice caps at both poles. They describe the phenomenon that both cold and heat tend to perpetuate themselves because ice reflects heat making the region colder and icier, and heat produces heat absorbing ground and greenery, which raises temperatures. This indicates that shifts between the 2 states, once started tend to continue and accelerate. Even so these "rapid" changes involve thousands of years. Sober responsible people are looking into the question of global warming. They are wary of conclusions, and they certainly don't base their theories and decisions on thermometer readings from here and there over the last few years. Not a one has proposed it was dinosaurs driving SUV's that catapulted us out of the last ice age.
Steve
As you note, the existing computer models (so revered by the global warming proponents) can't predict anything useful. When applied to old data, they don't predict what actually followed. The various models differ wildly from each other, indicating for certain they can't all be right, and raising the liklihood that none of them are worth anything. Environmentalism is a must. Its just that the whackos have taken over the movement. Another poster has suggested that the remnants of the anti-capitalist/commie groups shocked by the fall of the USSR, have taken over the Green movement as an anti-capitalist tool. Rush has proposed this also. Could be. That makes a lot of tree huggers useful idiots.

Savage99
Normally, when I determine a post is by a Liberal I skip it and continue on. They all read the same as they dwell in their imaginary dream world. But being you mentioned it I went back and read it. Like you say, hard to believe the ignorance. How conveniently he describes population control to a book. Birth Control and Family planning. Without a mention of the millions of babies murdered in the form of abortion. Libs are just plain sick in the head. I won't waste my time with their idiocy.

Alarmists
The panic mongers, like Jacocby states, have been in business for ever and don't seem to be going away any time soon. The one fact that always gets lost in the shuffle is that the earth's climate is a dynamic system that's so complex that it defies any attempt to make any accurate prediction for more than the next few hours. After last year, the Hurricane Prediction Center forecast 6 major storms this year with 3 to make landfall, and that was conservative compared to what some were saying. Well, this season came and went without a single hurricane and only one tropical storm hit the US. He11, the Weather Channel can't even tell me reliably what's coming 3 to 5 days from now. 65 million years ago the place where I live was a subtropical swamp, inhabited by dinosaurs, 100,000 years ago it was under a glacier in the ice age, now we have the 4 season climate familiar to those from the midwest. So, what's normal?

Savage99: Ever buy a bottle of water from your local c-store? $1.00 to 1.50 per liter works out to $4.25 up per gallon, making gasoline look cheap.

I've heard Rachel Carson called the biggest mass murderer in history. It was based on comparing death rates from malaria before and after the DDT ban. Mortality statistics show an increase of 20 million since the ban which was based on Carson's book "Silent Spring" which postulated catastrophe for wildlife if DDT use continued. A few birds and bugs may have been saved, but who can justify the price of 20 million human lives?

Reason and Responsibility
Like everyone else here, I have no idea whether global climate change (of the catastrophic variety) is in the relatively near future. I don't think it serves anyone's interests to dismiss the concept out of hand. This is one of those subjects that should be a politics free zone. Not realistic, but it should.

I think the "global cooling" vs. "global warming" debate is just a distraction. There isn't a scientist on the planet who believes that "global warming" means higher temperatures everywhere. Global warming would most likely cause temperatures to plunge in certain parts of the world.

Hopefully these facts are non-controversial:

1. Ocean currents are the most important factor that contributes to climate.
2. Ocean currents are caused by temperature differences between one area of the ocean and another.
3. If an ocean current is disrupted, the climate of the areas that that current influences will change. (Example: If melting Arctic ice shuts down the Gulf Stream, North America and Europe would become a tundra.)

If the above three points are true, then the question to ask is whether global warming can cause a disruption in ocean currents. That is not an alarmist question. It is a responsible question. We should try to answer it.

Goshawk, MyOpine
Your posts made a nice Christmas present.

Did you notice libgdman's defense of LD? Can't believe some of these posters are really real. With the nuke cat out of the bag, and suicidally fanatic muslims howling that 40,000,000 muslims would be a good trade for 4,500,000 Jews and 1,500,000 Arabs killed in Israel, it would seem to me that Israel faces a serious threat. Despite a Jewish upbringing, libgdman hasn't registered any qualms. He doesn't seem to notice the hundreds of pages of data, quotes by muslim leaders, and thousands dead that would seem to indicate lots of muslims don't like israel very much.

Thank you Goshawk
I am also a life member of CRPA.
Over the years, On Target has published several of my letters.
And one article.
Crime went crazy in Canada and England too when they confiscated civilian firearms. England can't cope with it, it is completely out of control.

MyOpine
Most Americans don't know that the *Real Life Crocodile Dundee* ( Rodney William Ansell ) The man the movie was based on. Was shot and killed by the Aussie police when he refused to give up his guns.

The entire story can be read here. And may be a forewarning of what could happen here in the USA.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/crocodile_dundee.htm

Oh yeh!
This "heard mentality" thing.
It won't be you they come for, it will always be someone else?
Betcha someone else thought so too.

I forgot to mention what the German Jack Booted thugs said if you did not have that registered gun to give them.
They said "BANG!"

11h
Man made Global Warming is a hoax but using the NRA as an example was a poor choice.
You misquote the NRA and over simplify.
What the NRA said was;
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

If you doubt the truth of that statement then ask some of the victims of such folly who live in England, Australia & Canada.
When they confiscated civilian arms in Austraila the crime of "Home Invasion" increased by 14 TIMES. That is FOURTEEN TIMES not percent.
Some areas of Canada went up by only 9 TIMES.
Home invasion is when someone forces their way into your home, rapes and/or tortures you and your family until they are sure they have everything of value in your home. Guess how they are SURE they have everything?
How do my guns or Pistols guns help you?
The bad guys can't be sure where those guns are at. He might be tying you to a chair and your son step out of a bedroom, jack a shell into that Savage M99 and blow a hole in him as big as a milk bottle!
When it is against the law to own a firearm that bad guy is guaranteed you and your family are helpless victims just waiting to be molested & robbed.

I am still waiting...
for the alarmists and their cadre of supporters and fellow travelers to be open and honest about what they believe it would take to stop GW.

The answer is certainly not "7% below 1990 levels by 2012". It is more like "stabilize CO2 concentrations at ~500 ppm". That would require a reduction of ~75% in worldwide CO2 emissions, including a reduction of ~95% in US CO2 emissions, on a per capita basis. Some believe that stabilization must be accomplished by 2050. When the strategy and technology required to achieve that reduction and stabilization are explained openly and honestly to the people of the world, and the scenarios for life in the "brave new world" are laid out for all to see, I will believe that the scientific community is serious about global climate change.

As we approach the New Year, it might be interesting to contemplate life in the US with 95% less CO2 emissions. "The answer, my friend(s), is (NOT) blowing in the wind."

"Merry Christmas to all; and, to all, a good night."

Fear Works
The NRA tells you if you let any gun control laws pass, the next thing you know the jack-booted thugs will kick down your doors and take ALL guns away!

That is how it started in Germany!!

You have to laugh at the all or nothings in our society. The best part of the article...

""The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken, "is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." Mencken was writing in 1920, but some things never change."

11h

The un-intended consequences of alarmism
I had mentioned Rachel Carson's "Silent Springs" in a previous post. For those seeking a succinct description of that environmental scare, check out: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

As Jeff Jacoby states, there will be lots of feel-good legislation that will result in fuel surcharges and a negative hit to the GDP.

Political hand-wringing will create alarmed citizens; there will be off-the-charts public support for such damaging legislation.

Those of us who work for a living (as opposed to politicians, who merely have to focus on getting elected) will pay the price.

Liberalgoodman and a few random thoughts
Overpopulation never happened because of a few events.

Contraception gave women control over the number and timing of children for the first time in history.

The world moved increasingly from a rural environment, where children were as asset, to an urban environment, where children were a liability.

Health care improved to the point that women, and men, too, looked around and saw that they would be able to assure lineal survival with fewer births, because the probability of survival of their children was going up.

As for global warming, we may or may not be in the early stages of a climate shift. there are, however, two troubling things going on.

The ocean elevator in the Atlantic, the process that warms Europe, among other things, appears to be changing, due, in part to an influx of warm fresh water from the Arctic.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in equatorial waters is rising, which is causing acidification of the water around coral reefs, which is killing them.

The elevator has shifted before, so part of this shift may be cyclical. It may be exacerbated by increased ice melt in the Arctic -- no one knows yet. However, if the elevator shuts down, you won't have to worry about global warming, because we'll be in another ice age.

Barry

Oops, sorry for the typo ..
That was meant to be "eradicating", but was mis-spelt as "eraticating".

No worries, liberalgoodman ..
If the book "Population Bomb" prevented overpopulation, then the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" will protect us from global warming. So, we can all feel safe ..

Actually, the danger of alarmist literature is better seen from another example - the effect of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" on eraticating malaria from the planet.

The hype that sells books and earns hysterical support from certain voting blocs is overblown. There IS an environmental problem, but raising alarmist rhetoric serves only to polarize the debate. While that is great for politicians (of all stripes), as individuals we are being 'played' by their fear-mongering.

Note: as you might infer from my previous posts, there are enough conservatives who don't subscribe to the knee-jerk 'nah, won't happen' response. However, it is necessary to focus on realistic solutions that don't cripple our economy.

Any thoughts on that subject?

Liberal fear and ranting
I hope your tag team dissing of LD makes you happy, but it won't stop global warming. You think making fun of serious people will make them wrong or even look bad? What looks bad is conservative dummies presented with hundreds of pages of techncial material with all kinds of theory, computer simulation, and data. You guys look at this and say "nah, won't happen".

Do you know why the "population bomb" predictions did not happen? Because of the book! Birth control and family planning! They saw a threat, they took it seriously, and they stopped it. The same probably will happen with global warming without you dummies even knowing.

Climate change
I am old enough to have been threatened by Corvairs, overpopulation, silent Springs, Communist dominoes, global warming, global cooling, glogal warming, global climate change and now once again by warming. Let us not forget cancer causing agents such as microwave ovens, power transmission lines and cell phones. A few UFO incidents and space aliens can be added to the list.

Alarmism sells! It sells newspapers, it garners prestige on the 'academics' who propose concepts and write scolarly works to support it. The alarm of the day gets 'federal' grants for further investigation.

For another perspective on several of these terrifying matters please stop by junkscience.com once in a while

Eon
Have you noticed how as soon as Loyal Democrat appears, folks like Kimberly,Phylo et al vanish? Its sort of like how the lefties who advocated raising the minimumwage vanished when several of us suggested raising it to $50/hour so we'd all be well off. I never did see a coherent reply to that proposal.

voice_of_reason
Your suspicion of govt solutions is doubtless shared by most of us, but of course govt does have its purposes. Some functions, like security, we just have to grin and bear the inefficiencies and stupid decisions, because there is no known alternative. One area in which it is easy to do better is in the many areas in which govt agencies themselves are the source of environmental disaster. The levee failure in NO was a govt responsibility. Govt agencies at every level from the federal corps of engineers through the governors office to the Mayor failed to take action to deal with a dangerous situation well publicized with simple unassailable data. Any fool knows water runs downhill, except politicians and voters. Irrigation policies for the water controlled by federal dams is another example. The feds sell water to California farmers at a loss. A few huge owners get rich, basically at taxpayer expense, while water is an ongoing and worsening problem. Throw the rascals out is the only way to get politicians responsive to the public weal, rather than their own agrandizement.

Kudos to Loyal Democrat
I always enjoy your "ranting" on TH mainly because of your consistancy. I feel compelled to compliment you on your good spelling and sentence structure. Also, your thoughts are presented in a clear and consise fashion.

Of all the TH crew, you are among the most entertaining. I really enjoyed your comment about how we should first buy into the claims made by the current crop of alarmists and then fund them so they can find evidence to back their claims. You are truly our resident genius!

Your ideas about crushing dissent are about the best though. Perhaps we could all simply flag you comments as offensive and not have to listen to/read your drivel. But then townhall wouldn't be nearly as much fun!

Keep up the good work!!?

Thanks, Savage99
It takes a lot for a supporter of 'laissez faire economics' (like myself) to admit that the Environment is one of the few areas that I see a legitimate role for Government.

Note: I am NOT advocating that we create a bureaucracy that mandates ridiculous standards and levies crippling taxes. Perhaps a model that is similar to the Bureau of Standards that sets acceptable levels of effluents in different industries? It would give rise to an industry that monitors such standards, and awards "Good Housekeeping" seals to companies that comply.

Since I work in the electronics industry, I am aware of a push (that originated at the EU in Brussels) to remove lead and other contaminants from electronics. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoHS for more. Most people don't know this, but it has been in effect for almost 6mos.

RoHS has imposed an almost crippling cost on electronics mfrs - in fact, some have gone out of business! For well-intentioned initiatives like RoHS to succeed, there have to be a set of incentives to mfrs and consumers alike.

Unfortunately, most bureaucratic solutions impose costs and penalties - without creating incentives. So, it becomes the province of smarmy politicians (e.g. Al Gore) to demonize and penalize those who make it possible for all of us to enjoy our affluence.

It is easy to fall into the trap of mandated Govt solutions when dealing with such problems ..

.. however, I don't see any other legitimate solution.

Is there anyone monitoring this thread who can suggest a workable non-Govt solution that creates the RIGHT kind of incentives?




Loyal Democrat
Ow. Ow. Ow.

That's me, biting my tongue to keep from laughing so hard I fall off my chair.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. The reductio ad absurdem argument inevitably points up the false premise of the original position.

Thanks for starting my day with a groan and a smile.

And BTW, Merry Christmas, to you, and all.


cheers

eon

Voice_of_reason
reasonable post indeed. Actually, drinking water is probably the most critical environmental issue right now. Some advances are being made, but overall the trends are increasing population and decreasing water tables. Sooner or later this trend must be reversed or we will be buying water like gasoline. Here in Florida it must be sooner or sea water will contaminate the acquifer and goodness knows where our drinking water will come from. Where ever, it won't be cheap.

Mud wrestling with LD ..
Those who attack LD are playing right into his/her strategy!

On sites such as MoveOn and Kos, s/he would not get any traction - since s/he wouldn't be strident enough for them. However, s/he has become a sort of anti-hero on this site, and will keep returning for more.

My suggestion: debate, and refute her/his points by all means, but don't give her/him what s/he really wants - personal gratification.

fredo1
What would be perfect is if LD is a black female, like Elaine Anderson. Anderson was the head of California's Welfare system under Pete Wilson. She drastically reduced the welfare rolls, and came out foresquare and unequivically that no able bodied person deserved unrestricted support on welfare. When in her early 20's she and her 2 small children were abandoned by the father. She used welfare to help as she got an education and embarked on a successful career. On 60 minutes, Leslie Stahl had no counter for her classical conservative positions. Finally, Stahl said (memory) You couldn't say these things if you weren't black! Why Leslie, said Ms. Anderson with a perfectly straight face, what could the color of my skin have to do with the quality of my ideas? Nothing but silence followed from Stahl. I was astonished the interview was aired. Last i heard of Anderson (i hope i got her name right) she was campaign manager for Bush in California in 2000. Would i love to see her amongst the power structure in DC? She doesn't have the glittering resume that Rice does, but could be an even more effective administrator and leader.

The Environment = Motherhood & apple pie
Issues such as global warming reach heightened levels of absurdity, when seen through the lens of political opinion.

The classical Republican position on global warming: it is all bogus science, everything is fine, nothing needs to be done, lets maintain the status quo ..

And now for the classical Democrat position: we're all going to die; Class 5 Hurricanes, tidal waves, famine, pestilence are imminent. Humans (especially greedy Americans) must be controlled, otherwise the end is near.

Chances are that neither side is actually right. There have been warming and cooling trends, and we are undoubtably in a 'warming' cycle. It is also foolish to think that the dominant species on this planet (humans) contribute absolutely NOTHING to environmental change.

Isn't it funny how one's choice of political parties can form one's opinion on a scientific issue? Actually, there is no place for OPINION in scientific matters. And, nor is the 'collective opinion' of the public particularly significant. The alarmism of groups of scientists can also be disregarded, since it usually amounts to nothing more than fashionable GroupThink.

So, what should be done?

Free enterprisers (and I count myself in this category) must understand that there is a cost associated with environmental profligacy. Lets remind ourselves that 'my right to freely swing my arm ends at the bridge of your nose!' Likewise, my right to dump toxins into the atmosphere ends at the point when you inhale.

And those who seek control or political capital via environmental fear (e.g. Al Gore, with his over-the-top rhetoric) must also realize that the steps that they are proposing will eventually lead to economic ruin.

If we can get rid of the political posturing - and ONLY IF we can - there is a possibility that we can arrive at objective laws that limit prevent environmental damage without causing economic ruin.

If such OBJECTIVE laws can be created, the people that LD characterizes as 'disgusting capitalists' will come up with econimically feasible solutions - and become more 'disgustingly' rich!

Loyal Democrat
Another fine post, one of your best. Fredo1 is right. There has got to be some commercial way you can exploit your talent. You would be the best thing on TV talking heads since Elaine Anderson(memory) had Leslie Stahl in sputtering incoherence on 60 minutes.

But our citizens are different now . . .
Back in the days of prior global climate scares, the population had the common sense to laugh at most of the absurdities about pending disaster. There was NO WAY a congress could have rushed legislation that crippled industry. NOW -- because we in America worship academics like they are little walking godheads -- a huge segment of the population uncritically buys into the Al Gore school of climatology. And we keep funding these STUDENT LOAN programs with greater largesse? What a joke. These professors are laughing at us all the way to the bank. And of course most will be insulated to a degree from the resultant economic slowdown that will be associated with their policy recommendations. Give them credit for smarts, anyway.

LD
I love the way you stay in character throughout your little diatribes. And you present to us the actual thinking of the liberal left, especially the hypocrisy of their declarations of liberty for only the politically correct (as defined only by them).

We can't afford to dispute the claims.
True, some errors have been made in the past regarding various problems facing mankind, but that doesn't preclude contemporary experts from being right in regards to global warming. This is a case whereby we just cannot afford to remain idle because if the experts are indeed correct, such unresponsiveness will bring about the fall of mankind.

Methods of correcting the problem are met with criticism, and this has to stop, even if it means outlawing all research that is conducted by the dissenters. The experts cannot produce solutions that will save us if they are continuously compelled to defend their opinions and predictions. There comes a time when we have to accept an opinion for our own good and let those that wish to help us have unfettered control over the decisions that need to be made, even if the facts appear to be disputable on the surface. Proving a theory takes up valuable time, and in this case we don't have time to waste in the collection and analysis of data, especially since there is an easier way to determine just who is actually right. By considering the motivation behind the sources of the pro and con arguments, it is easy to see just who we should actually believe. Those that argue man-made global warming is a reality are people that care about the planet, and they have no ulterior motives for making their case other than a concern for nature. Conversely, those that say man-made global warming is a myth are members of industry, the disgusting capitalists that stand to make undeserved financial profit if the preventative measures are not enforced. Based on the greed factor, it is clear that we need to accept the presumptions of the proponents of the global warming theories, and in order to keep their voices alive, we should provide whatever funding they need to conduct studies to prove their case. They know that man-made global warming is a legitimate threat, and if we keep them well funded, they will be able to find the evidence that backs up whatever they tell us to be true. We should also provide such proponents with the political clout required to suppress or eliminate the counter arguments and studies made by those that dispute the proponents since we cannot afford to have adverse positions being advanced while such impending doom looms on the horizon.

In a nutshell, errors made in the past do not eradicate the facts of the present. Solutions to our current problems will come quicker if we rein in the capitalists by outlawing any research
that disputes the fact that global warming is caused by man. We need to stop hindering people that are doing things for our own good.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.