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, August 06, 2007
Bill Steigerwald :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Sun, Stupid
by Bill Steigerwald
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Go outside at noon on a cloudless day.

Hold up your arm with your palm perpendicular to the blinding bright spot high in the sky. Feel the heat on your hand? It’s coming from 93 million miles away. Yet it’s so powerful it’ll eventually burn your flesh.

Even filtered by our atmosphere, even after traveling eight minutes at the speed of light, sunshine is so full of energy it can create life on Earth, turn water to gas and melt polar ice.

But the sun can’t cause global warming.

The sun is so distant and so small in our sky we forget how enormous it is -- and what a speck of space dust Earth is. Our home star composes 99.82 percent of the mass of the solar system. The sun's mass is 330,000 times the Earth's mass. About 1 million Earths could fit inside the sun.

The sun is a furnace of nuclear fusion beyond human comprehension. Although just an ordinary star, it produces an incomprehensible 386 billion-billion megawatts of energy per second.

It’s also real hot. Its core is a hellish 27 million degrees Fahrenheit. Its surface is 11,000 degrees. Its corona, which extends millions of miles into space, has temperatures of 1.8 million degrees.

But the sun doesn’t just bathe our tender planet in light and heat. It also blasts us with an invisible hurricane of high-energy electrons and protons that travel at 1.6 million miles per hour.

This solar wind, which extends past Pluto and constantly changes speed, density, direction and magnetic power, can produce auroras like our Northern Lights and knock out electric power grids on Earth’s surface.

But the sun can’t be causing global warming.

In fact, if you believe the global warming hysterics, the sun’s mighty powers to affect our climate have been eclipsed by man’s accelerating greenhouse gas output.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been saying the sun is responsible for about 10 percent of the roughly 1 degree-Fahrenheit rise in Earth’s average temperature over the last century.

But now a new European study of solar activity concludes the sun's effect on global warming is “negligible.” Since 1985, the study shows, such factors as sunspots and solar irradiance are trending away from heating the Earth.

The Royal Society, the United Kingdom's national science academy, pronounced that this new study “comprehensively” disproves claims that the cause of recent global warming is increased solar activity. Humans are to blame. Natch.

Lots of other studies have come to the opposite conclusion, of course.

Going back 10,000 years, a 1998 study found that past periods of global warming coincided nicely with increased sunspot activity, which occur during increases in the sun's brightness and energy output. In 2004, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research said Earth was getting hotter because the sun was burning brighter than it had in 1,000 years.

We don't want to get into an ugly debate about the prime cause of global warming. But maybe all those sun-worshipping ancestors of ours were not such dummies after all.

Sure, they lived in caves, thought gods controlled the weather and couldn’t even spell SUV. But eons ago they figured out what should still be obvious to every creature on Earth today.

The mighty sun is in charge of what happens on puny Earth -- not humans or their fires.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Bill Steigerwald, born and raised in Pittsburgh, is a former L.A. Times copy editor and free-lancer who also worked as a docudrama researcher for CBS-TV in Hollywood before becoming a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a columnist Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Bill Steigerwald recently retired from daily newspaper journalism..
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
It Can't Be The Sun
If it was the sun causing all this global warming then that would mean that there are things more powerful than man. That would mean that... , ohh the blasphemy shall be uttered, ...that man is not in charge (pc-woman is not in charge). Could it be that God is in charge?

Having said that, I'm ready for my stoning.

Red Herring
The other papers say that the sun can and has caused global warming. The new one from the Royal Society says that the sun isn't causing current global warming. It's a good thing that you don't want to get into a debate on the causes of global warming, because there's no debate here. Not because "the debate is over", but because the two points of view are both true.

The sun
On any given summer day the sun is responsible for heating the planet 300+ degrees Celsius (from close to absolute zero), but somehow cannot be responsible for the .5 degree Celsius change that is the measure of global warming. Ladies and gentlemen that's about a .18% (or 1/6 of a degree) difference in total solar output. Somehow this variability in solar output sounds more likely than that we have made this change.

Frey
Logically they can both be true, but scientifically are both true? I say no.

Links
I am not going to look up the links tonight but there at two very compelling links, scientific studies that provide evidence that there are cycles that go back millions of year that show ice age then warming then ice age. There are at least 5 cycles.

One study is based on the antarctic ice core data that measures CO2 and temperature changes. The other is from another branch of science and is based on Sun activity. Different branches of science coming to the same conclusion.

Global Warming is a farce. Gore is telling us we can control the climate and the weather. He is nuts. He is implying that we can avoid hurricanes in the Gulf by burning less gas.

He is also claiming that if we reduce carbon emissions by just the right amount all of the adverse effects will be avoided. Getting the amount just right is like hitting a needle on the moon with a bb gun.

That of course assumes that CO2 causes temperature change. The causal relationship may be reversed.

We have been getting warmer since the last ice age. There have been 5 similar cycles in the past. We will be peaking and then sliding into the next ice age in a few hundred years.

Gore and his carbon offsets will be dead long before we peak and start to cool.

Genesis
If you read Genesis you find that in chapter 1 verse 9-13 the seas, the land and plants were created during the 3rd day or creative period. However, in verses 14-19 the solar system as we know it with a Sun and a Moon were created in the 4th day or creative period.

The Lord did not give any details about how much time or under what conditions the earth existed before the Sun and Moon were created. Or how long it took to create the animals in day/creative period 5.

It is possible to fit 5 ice ages into the creative periods without doing damage to Genesis.

Yes I know Peter indicated that a day with the Lord is a thousand years but the interpretation of the word day in Genesis during the creation may not mean the same thing as the day that Peter talks about. A year as we know it did not exist until day/creative period 4.

Scott
According to the Royal Society paper, the solar output has been decreasing for the past ten years or so. Not by much, but I fail to see how the sun can be causing warming when it's been cooling (and has lower sunspot activity).

And why aren't they both true scientifically? Do you have a paper that contradicts the one from the Royal Society?

Sol
The Sun is very hot, true. As far as distance is concerned it is actually extremely close to us (we could almost be considered as inhabiting the extreme outer atmosphere of the sun). Current global warming and unusual solar activity are not linked, and the evidence is very basic,- If the global warming were caused by unusual solar activity rather than atmospheric changes (increased co2 etc), then the warming would be greater during the day and not at night.

Scientists have confirmed that the tempareture of the biosphere is raised at night as well as during the day. Simple!

Polar Ice caps
The polar ice caps on Mars are shrinking but not as fast as the ones on Earth. The Sun seems to be warming the surface (if not the air) more.

As usual, different branches of science come to different conclusions as they use different theories and methods. The theory you start with and the methods you employ have a lot to do with what you do and don't find, much less conclude. Different scientists can look at he same data and come to different conclusions.

Heat sink
Part of global warming is just lousy measurement. We have a lot of temperature gauges that measure warming that are near heat sinks (buildings, blacktop, concrete etc). That would raise both the day and night temp to some degree.

If global warming or climate change is
NOT truely caused by people - than what's the harm?
You buy carbon offsets - you're out a bit of cash
The American economy goes south - you're out a bit more cash.
The world economy goes south - we all live in caves, just like we used to.
Al Gore and all the hyterics will STILL live in their mansions.
Africa will still be the poorest place on earth.
China will be the world leader.
And vast swatches of earth will be contaminated with the mercury from those *green* bulbs.

Al Gore says it's a great idea...
Don't you???

Energy independence
I actually advocate energy independence (helps with global warming) but I do it for foreign policy and economic reasons. I am not into CO2 but we need to find a different source of fuel and drive the price of oil into the ground.

Piltdown con is better
The PILTDOWN con in early 1900's for EVOLUTION was a much better forgery than today's Global Warming con...

Back then they found the missing link in ENGLAND,,,,(APE to MAN)... and walaa EVOLUTION is true....

They had ALL SCIENTISTS, not just some of them on board,, and the forgery skull (a modified monkey head) "tricked" all the experts for 50 years.

YEP,,, for 50 years all scientists believed the missing link was found in ENGLAND......

Mind you this was over the CREATION vs. EVOLUTION debate,,, (made todays Global AL GORE crap seem small)


MORAL of the story,,,
Be very skeptical when (all) scientists agree with conclusions that support them... in $ (grants, govt control) or philosophy,, (just science, no god)



BG
Makes a good point.

Energy conservation is good foreign policy and could end up being a major plus for the American economy.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about what the next phase in our economy will be and at this point I think it's in "green" technologies.

American companies should be trying to get out in front of this new market, just like Bill Gates did with computer software and Google, Yahoo et al did with the internet economy.

Oh and if helps the environment that's good too.

Stop global warming?
STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT!

I find it amazing
that Co2, a naturally occuring gas that is vital for our survival is now classified as a pollutant. I do not claim to be a scientist but I know what the sun does here in S. Texas. It does what it always does and always has. And always will.

Frey
...asks "Do you have a paper that contradicts the one from the Royal Society?"

There have been many studies that contradict the one from the Royal Society. The problem is with the scientific community supressing these studies. Global warming is a huge career boost for these guys. There is a huge pile of research money for scientists to study global warming. The contradictory studies are out there. You just need to do a little research.


I'm with Rick J and
while we're at it why not change the tilt of the earth to a more manageable 15 degrees!

Global Warming
No one should question AlGor because he is the smartest man ever. Now that he's done inventing the internet, he's saving us from global warming. All hail AlGor.

Outlaw Greenhouses!
I've used this argument elsewhere; am still trying to get it to catch on though.
Greenhouses produce greenhouse gases, right? Otherwise, why would they be called that? no greenhouses=no greenhouse gases. Problem solved. And I have some vegetable offsets to sell you...

ROME
"We don't want to get into an ugly debate about the prime cause of global warming. But maybe all those sun-worshipping ancestors of ours were not such dummies after all.

Sure, they lived in caves, thought gods controlled the weather and couldn’t even spell SUV. But eons ago they figured out what should still be obvious to every creature on Earth today."


I love how you pander to the Christians. "First there were sun worshiping cavemen, then there were civilized Christians who brought us the SUV."

Hate to bust all your bubbles, but sun worshipers built ROME. The single most advanced civilization of the ancient world. You know the one we copied cause we couldn't think of anything better ourselves.



ITS NOT CO2 ITS WATER
Water vapor is the primary "greenhouse gas" not CO2 yet CO2 gets all the blame/credit. The greenhouse effect is also necessary to our survival. Without it, all the water on Earth would be frozen. CO2 makes up only 36 hundreths of one percent of our atmosphere (and we have to have it for anything to grow). Water comprises varying percentages of the atmosphere but as high as 4% in the tropics to almost negligable at the South pole. So, it causes more than 90% of the greenhouse effect. Some say 95%

Do you think maybe we could control global warming by buying water vapor credits? I would be happy to sell them!

THE SUN
We should send Gore & his Greenies to inspect the sun closely. They could then determine just how hot it is. Not to worry though, send them at night.

Power
Recently, the History Channel aired a program on cataclysmic destruction scenarios. One. of course, was global warming. Without addressing the accuracy of such claims the global warming case was presented. At the end of the segment a little factiod was flashed on the screen during segue to commercial. It stated that the energy transmitted to the earth's surface in just one hour of solar radiation exceeded the energy production of the human race for an entire year. Draw your own conclusions.

Romans were more than sun worshippers
uber writes: Hate to bust all your bubbles, but sun worshipers built ROME. The single most advanced civilization of the ancient world. You know the one we copied cause we couldn't think of anything better ourselves."

Hate to burst YOUR bubble, but the religion of the ancient Romans was richer, far more complex and profound than mere 'sun worship.' Google the word 'numina' and begin your education.

Numen
I didn't know about this concept, and while relevant it certainly seems more relevant to the Roman Empire than to the Republican Rome.

I think this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_religion is a better description of roman faith. As you point out Rome was not dominated by one faith, that is until Christianization.

Of course we could talk about that. You know how Constantine I destroyed a thousand years of philosophic, scientific and mathematical knowledge in his obsession with wiping out paganism. There by sending Europe into the dark ages.

Luckily Islam was more open to critical thinking, which explains why the greatest minds of the dark ages tender to be Muslims.

uber
Greatest civilation, unless you were a Judean of course.
Rome was a tyrant, I think. Had positive things, agreed. But bled everyone, everywhere white to sustain free bread and circuses for Romans.

Pretty much what people are accusing us of. But that's another discussion that calls for serious thought and not petty bickering.

A Simple Question
How did Al Gore and his global warming acolytes determine the correct/proper/normal temperature for the earth's atmosphere?

uber
I have nothing but contempt for Constatine I but the dark ages didn't start until a few hundred years later and had nothing to do with getting rid of paganism but a lot to do with the great apostacy, which Constatine was a part of. Just my opinion.

Islam? give me a break! One of the greatest frauds in history. A curse on mankind.

Uber
"the greatest minds of the dark ages tended to be Muslim"...and they're wanting to GO BACK to the Dark Ages with their destroying, beheading, bombing all things and "infidels" that have made modernity prosperous and abundant.

No thanks. I'll stay here in the 21st Century.

P.S. Algore is a joke and a fraud. IMHO (in my humble opinion)

uber
What in Hell has that to do with the article in Town Hall?

Correction
I should have said that there is a huge pile of money out there to study "anthropogenic" warming. Any studies which would conclude that humans have a negligible effect on warming could negatively effect the life of this cash cow.

Speaking of cows, the ridiculous notion that a major cause of warming emanates from the posteriors of "agricultural" animals has much more to do with the political ramifications of eating meat than it does with climate change.

It's not the sun, stupid.
"But the sun can’t cause global warming."

It can, it's just not causing it NOW.

"Lots of other studies have come to the opposite conclusion, of course."

Hmmm lots of studies come to the conclusion that the sun's influence has increased temps since 1985? Okay, name one. Just one. Anyone? Hello? Echo...

"In 2004, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research said Earth was getting hotter because the sun was burning brighter than it had in 1,000 years."

Oops. You shouldn't be using the word "stupid" ni a healine if you can't read the literature properly. It is true that the sun is at an 1,000 year high--but it has been since 1950. Any warming would already have occured (and it has), so something else is causing the current warming. By the way, this is exactly what Solankski says in his study, so perhaps you should read it again (but then you never read it the first place, I'd wager). Only people who don't understand solar physics think that a trend in 1940 will show up in 1980.

"We don't want to get into an ugly debate about the prime cause of global warming."

Since the debate would make you look foolish, it's a good choice.

Further evidence the sun is not the cause of warming? Cooling stratosphere and the gliobal radiation imbalance.

But I agree with your main point, which seems to be that the sun is hot. Good one.






RE: Frey
"According to the Royal Society paper, the solar output has been decreasing for the past ten years or so. Not by much, but I fail to see how the sun can be causing warming when it's been cooling (and has lower sunspot activity)."

Amusingly, our planet also hasn't warmed in the past 10 years either. Since 1988, our global temperature has actually fallen slightly. Not by much, but it seems yours, and your Royal Society, have hereby PROVEN what you wish wasn't proven.

numina
numina numina numina.......wasnt that what Ralph Kramden used to sputter to Alice?

RE: Crimson2
"Oops. You shouldn't be using the word "stupid" ni a healine if you can't read the literature properly. It is true that the sun is at an 1,000 year high--but it has been since 1950."

Oops. According to Harvard-Smithsonian physicist Dr. Willie Soon, the sun's irradiance and are global temperature are about the same as it was in the 1950s. In fact, his numbers show that the irradiance of the sun and the global temperature have almost perfectly tracked along with one another since at least the 1870s.

Correction:
"Since 1988, our global temperature has actually fallen slightly."

That's 1998, not 1988.

Global Warming High Priest - Algore
Without even considering the poor science behind the theory of global warming being caused by human activity, one should consider the credentials of its main spokesperson- Al Gore.
This is the same guy that sold his vote to proceed with the first Gulf War to those in favor... not for huanitarian reasons, not for national security, but because they offered him the most time in front of the camera to discuss his vote!
Now, he wants to sell us carbon credits to ease our conscience and perhaps fatten his wallet?!
What kind of fool will believe anything that he says now?

Crimson2...
...states "It is true that the sun is at an 1,000 year high--but it has been since 1950. Any warming would already have occured (and it has), so something else is causing the current warming."

Your assumption is, no doubt, that science has proven what that "something else" is.

Right!!!

OK, assuming that the current shift in global weather patterns truly indicates that the world is warming, what is the "PRIME" (single) cause of global warming?

Oceans Are Not Rising
The oceans have been rising 3 mm per year. It will take 100 years to rise ONE FOOT! The oceans and global temperatures have been in flux for 5000 years.

Don't let the idiots bankrupt us and throw us into a global depression because of a nonexistant problem.

I bet I
could pick out those of you who sit and watch the weather channel....hahahahahaaa

beowulfe
"Amusingly, our planet also hasn't warmed in the past 10 years either. Since 1998, our global temperature has actually fallen slightly."

Not exactly, although I'm glad you're amused. 1998 was a hotter than now, but temperature hasn't been falling steadily since then. According to readings from the Hadley Center, there was a spike in temperature in 1998, thanks to El Nino, then temperature dropped equally dramatically in 1999. There was a slight dip in 2000, and the temperature started going up again after that, and within seven years, we're very close to the temperature that was an anolamy in 1998.

Other Planets
If the sun was responsible for GW, we would find that temperatures were going up on other planets as well. We would see a corelation between solar output and global temperature.

If CO2 were responsible for GW, we would see that CO2 levels lead temperature, and that something other than the sun was responsible for those higher levels.

The truth is that surface temperatures on Mars and Venus ARE keeping pace with ours; that charts of temperature and solar activity show a direct corelation; that CO2 levels LAG temperature; and that higher temperatures cause the oceans to release vast amounts of CO2.

The notion that, if the sun were the culprit, the temperatures at night would not increase denies the central process which GW hysterics blame for our predicament, the greenhouse effect. GW skeptics do not demy the greenhouse effect, we simply doubt that it can account for the temperature increases we are seeing. The atmosphere DOES retain heat at night to keep the night-side of the planet from freezing. But the data does NOT support the theory that increasing the levels of greenhhouse gasses make a huge difference to the temperature.

I was just about to say...
...where's the proof that CO2 is causing heating, not the other way around?

Skeptic, can you give me a cite? I'd sure like to quote it to others.

Cheers!

RE: Frey
"Not exactly, although I'm glad you're amused. 1998 was a hotter than now, but temperature hasn't been falling steadily since then. According to readings from the Hadley Center, there was a spike in temperature in 1998, thanks to El Nino, then temperature dropped equally dramatically in 1999. There was a slight dip in 2000, and the temperature started going up again after that, and within seven years, we're very close to the temperature that was an anolamy in 1998."

Yes or no: Are the temperatures warmer or colder now than they were in 1998?

Colder. SLIGHTLY.

Yes or no: Is the sun's irradiance higher or lower than it was in 1998?

Lower. SLIGHTLY.

Since at least the 1870s (that's about the furthest back we've got reliable information) the global temperature has tracked perfectly with solar irradiance, INCLUDING in 1998 AND right now.

Oh, but according to AlGore®, you, and the rest of the know-nothing idiots who are only looking to return us to the 7th century simply so that their power is permanently solidified, exhaling causes all of the global warming.

The FACT of the matter is that NOBODY -- NO-BUH-DEE -- on this planet can reliably predict what our temperature will be in 2 weeks. Why should we institute policies that WILL cripple this planet's economy, thrusting the world into a lasting economic depression, resulting in BILLIONS of human deaths as a result, because the very same idiots who can't tell us whether it's going to be 75 degrees or 105 degrees NEXT WEEK claim they can magically tell us what the temperature is going to be in 100 years?

The answer is, of course, it IS NOT about "global warming". That is an IRREFUTABLE fact. It is all about what I mentioned before: solidifying the power of certain rich people, and NOTHING more. It is about siezing power through whatever means necessary, and if they have to make up garbage like "human exhaling causes global warming", then so be it.

Scam
Global warming is one big scam designed to take money from the working classes and hand it over to the elites so they can conduct endless studies at our expense. Think about it. We all know how to prevent AIDS but by taking those steps some egghead at Harvard can't get paid some grant to study the problem. I would like to see a study on how much these endless studies cost the American taxpayer not to mention tie up valuable resources which could be used to improve our lives. There have been several climate cycles over the years but this one is caused by my Honda CRV. Does anyone remember Nuclear Winter? Well that didn't happen either or did I just miss it? Must not have since I am still here typing. The same chicken littles who predict a global catastrophe due to warming predicted an ice age thirty-five years ago and twenty years from now it will be something else. It is just one big scam to protect the elites in their ivy league irory towers.

Crimson
What do you make of the .65 C increase in the temperature of Mars over the last few decades? It is very much in line with the increase the earth had in the 20th century. Cooler stratosphere is probably due to shifting or less ozone, thus the stratosphere could be cooler while the sun is still producing a greater output.

the sun and global warming
numerous people have weighed in on this debate. But I am waiting for the final word from the global warming messiah, alldull. Until we mere mortals can hear from our new holy messiah of the church of global warming how can we know the truth. We are told this is settled debate and all who doubt the veracity of alldull's pronouncements are apostates. So until we recieve alldull's holy writ how can we know the truth

global warming?
There is no way to measure the temperature of the
earth and say it .5 degrees warmer.
Any child could figure that out. It is often 1 degree higher or lower across the street 100ft away.

There is know way to measure the heat of the sun.

Those people spreading this info are merely doing
so to "earn" their money.
-------------------------------------------------
Actually, the earth is dying of old age.
End of debate!

Red and Blue should both be Green
How much consensus does there need to be among the world's top scientists before the "hoax" crowd realizes that the fact of CO2-caused climate change IS NOT political?

You can bash Al Gore all you want, but in the meantime he has 98% of the world's scientists AND Exxon-Mobil and Ford on his side working to curb emissions and make everything operate greener. That's pretty damn good. And if you think it's because they're all just playing some dumb political game, you are being willfully, dangerously ignorant.

Can't we just all agree to work on technology that reduces our CO2 emissions AND helps business and the free market? Why must the entire idea of human-induced environmental crisis be so evil to the right? And why must "going green" be parallel to the utter collapse of our economy? Haven't we been through bigger problems and subsequent huge changes successfully?

Sick of Global Warming

.....That emminent scientist and philosopher (I can't remember his name ...he played the lead role in Titanic)...is coming out with a movie follow up to Algore's "Inconvient Truth" ...

.....Personally I am sick to death of these potificating pin heads flying around in their private jets telling us poor plebes how we should live our lives ...

.....Maybe we should just enjoy this current warm cycle because the next glacial ice age is in our future ...imagine Manhatten under a mile thick sheet of ice ...what would Algore and whats his name do then? .....COLOSSUS

minky
"There have been many studies that contradict the one from the Royal Society. The problem is with the scientific community supressing these studies."

If true (big if), how could the scientific community suppress them so completely? It might have been able to 50 years ago, but this is the age of the internet and self-publishing. If a scientist has made a ground-breaking discovery and the journals won't publish it, he can put it out there himself, and find someone outside the scientific community to publish it for him. It won't gain scientific acceptance immediately without peer review, but good science is good science. It would have a place in the debate, and have an impact.

Take Benny Peiser, for example. He wrote an article for Nature that "debunked" the famous Oreskes paper on scientific consensus on global warming. Nature refused to publish it, and many people charge that Nature was trying to suppress the study. But I will bet you that at least five people on this thread alone know all about his paper. I first heard about it on Townhall about six months ago, soon after I got involved in the GW debate. Benny Peiser's story is pretty well known, and at least part of the article is available on-line and easy to find with a google or wikipedia search. So if Nature truly intended to suppress the story, they didn't do a very good job.

RE: TurnLeft
"You can bash Al Gore all you want, but in the meantime he has 98% of the world's scientists"

Correction: "The most recent survey of climate scientists, following the same methodology as a published study from 1996, found that while there had been a move towards acceptance of anthropogenic global warming, only 9.4% of respondents 'strongly agree' that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic sources. A similar proportion 'strongly disagree.' Furthermore, only 22.8% of respondents 'strongly agree' that the IPCC reports accurately reflect a consensus within climate science." - Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany.

"AND Exxon-Mobil and Ford"

Uh, they're just looking to exploit morons like yourself, and profit off your ignorance.

"Why must the entire idea of human-induced environmental crisis be so evil to the right?"

It isn't the notion that's evil, but the lying scammers who are purporting the notion simply to seize power at the expense of everyone else.

"And why must "going green" be parallel to the utter collapse of our economy?"

Because the greenfreaks like AlGore® demand that is the case.

baseballdoc
you are referring to alldull's new sidekick, dicaprio. This genius must be all of twenty five years old, I would guess, without any formal education. But he has sat at the foot of his master, alldull, where he has learned the wisdom of the ages. We as mere mortals cannot begin to understand alldull's enlightenment, unless we line up to become mindless acolytes under his inspired guidance

Okay, Spikyone ...
think about it. If it's warmer during the day, what happens? Wouldn't you think that things would absorb some of that heat? And then, when it starts to cool down at night, all the things that absorbed that heat would radiate it, thereby making the nights warmer as well.

I'm not typically one prone to conspiracy theories, but the lack of common sense and the failure to look at cyclical warming periods in relatively recent recorded history, has lead me to believe that their may be one afoot. How else can one explain the overwhelming number on the lunatic left and their claims of the dire consequences of GW and the need to reign in so-called unrestrained capitalism. Some do-gooderists deeds know no bounds.

RE: Frey
"So if Nature truly intended to suppress the story, they didn't do a very good job."

Did you happen to know that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was caught RED HANDED handing out bribes to her fellow House Democrats in exchange for their vote for her for their party's leadership, and then fined $25,000 for doing so? If not, that's not surprising. Only two national papers (and NONE of the national TV broadcasts, magazines, or any other venue) even mentioned it. The Washington Post had a tiny (~100 words) blurb on it on like page C54, and, I think, the LA Times or SF Chronicle had a microscopic mention on it in one of their back sections.

Now are you telling me that since I am one of about 10 people on planet Earth that knows San Fran Nan is just another low-life corrupt slime bag, the national media didn't burry the story "good enough"?

The ONLY way for any large number of people to find anything out is if it is covered in the national publication. Science magazine, the most widely read scientific journal, has a policy SPECIFICALY prohibiting any article that calls into question the antics of the global warming kooks. That is a FACT. It does NOT matter hord incontravertable the science in such an article is, they REFUSE to print it. Why? Because Science magazine does NOT care about actual science, but instead driving specific political policies, and if that means suppressing ACTUAL science in favor of vomiting junk science that even a 5th grade science teacher could debunk, so be it.

beowulfe
Dude, calm down. (Although, what I'm about to say probably won't help. ;-))

A) Re: temperatures. I see you're following in the tradition of Chris Horner and cherry-picking the data.

B) I see you're also following in the tradition of Richard Lindzen and failing to understand the difference between weather and climate.

C) (and this one is for Common Man as well) "I hate Al Gore, therefore anthropogenic global warming isn't real" Logical. Of course, whenever someone from the other side of the debate mentions oil industry links, he's reamed for attacking the messenger.

D) Re: economic damage. This always cracks me up. Apparently, environmental alarism is bad, but economic alarmism is OK. Show me some evidence to back up your predictions.

WAIT A MINUTE!
If it is true that we can so haphazzardly cause the earth to warm in just a few decades of undirected activity, don't you think we'll be able to manipulate the temperature of the planet rather effectively when we are actually TRYING to? Just a thought.

Frey
What is the CO2 model proponents response to the fact that CO2 lags temperature in the ice-core record, and the fact that other planets are also getting warmer?

Did you ever notice
that the sun warms the globe everyday?


beowulfe
Assuming your story about Nancy Pelosi is true, well that story still came out, didn't it? Not widespread, but it's still out there. I'm not claiming that anti-AGW papers aren't being suppressed. I tend to doubt it, but it's certainly possible. But the claim was the papers are being suppressed comepletely, and that's not possible. I've been involved in the AGW debate for over six months, maybe closer to a year, now that I think about it, and I obviously have no problem with hearing the opposing side. In all that time, I have never seen a paper that shows that the current warming is due to the sun. If there is one, where is it? Show me the link, and tell me what publication it's in.

The Sun is not the cause of GW?
What is the answer to the following questions:

How much CO2 do we have to add to the athmosphere to keep the earth from freezing solid if the sun suddenly stopped shining?

Note also that every breath we exhale contributes to global warming, along with the exhalation of all animals on the planet. The best way to save mankind from extintion is to exterminate all of mankind!

gwco2skeptic
CO2 has lagged temp in the ice core because natural, non-temp related CO2 changes are very rare. Generally, it takes a major increase in volcanic activity (and I do mean MAJOR, it's only happened a few times in Earth's history.) Now, we're the ones pumping the CO2 out. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (proven by lab experiments a century ago), so if it increases by 40% (so far), that extra carbon dioxide is going to have an effect.

And are ALL the planets getting warmer? I'd heard it was Mars, Neptune, and maybe Pluto. What's happening with the others?

The Sun is not the cause of GW?
What is the answer to the following questions:

How much CO2 do we have to add to the athmosphere to keep the earth from freezing solid if the sun suddenly stopped shining?

Note also that every breath we exhale contributes to global warming, along with the exhalation of all animals on the planet. The best way to save mankind from extintion is to exterminate all of mankind!

global warming
one of the british geniuses stated that walking for your errands did more harm than riding a bus. Walking requires more calories, which requires more food, which requires more fossil fuels to produce and distibute the food. The solution, stop living

Beware of the percentage sign.
"Now, we're the ones pumping the CO2 out. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (proven by lab experiments a century ago), so if it increases by 40% (so far), that extra carbon dioxide is going to have an effect."

If CO2 increases by 40%, does that imply that the earth's temperature must also increase by 40%?

If CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas, is it as effective of a net retainer of infra-red radiation than other greenhouse gasses, such as water vapor or methane?

If CO2 was 1% of the earth's athmosphere, and increased by 0.4%, that would be a 40% relative increase. But in reality, it is only an absolute increase of 0.4%. Percentages of a percentage are suspect and do not make for good science or dialogue or debate. If I had one lotto ticket, and my chances of winning are about 1 in 10 million, and you had two lotto tickets, your chances of winning are 100% greater than my chances of winning, but in reality, you are statistically insignificantly better off, because your chances are only two in a million.

Statistics are like a bikini, what they show you can be very revealing, but what they don't show you is vital.

rob
alldull can't debate with those knowledgeable of facts. He can only step up to a podium to potificate. Last winter he gave a "speech" at arizona state unicv. His fee was $100,000.00 from the student fees. He gave no press conference and would answer no questions. This, all from the moron who claims global warming is settled science. If his case is air-tight why does he run from questions. Shortly thereafter came the revelations about his wasteful use of energy. We can only continue the challenge: alldull defend and justify your energy use and debate the growing numberr of skeptics who think you are the one full of hot air.

turnleft
Whos top scientists?
You have to be a complete idiot to think the temperature of the earth can be measured in any
form that can be said to be precise.

The earth has been getting warmer for millions of
years.
Scientists told us there used to be 300ft of ice
in death valley. When did that happen? It did not
happen in the last 100yrs.
They have also stated that the rotation of the earth is slowing & is closer to the sun.
And there is no way to measure the temperature of
the sun!
Al Gore can lead by moving in a tiny little house. IF we are troubling the earth!

Frey
GOTCHA MAN!!!

My claim was NOT that the research was suppressed completely. I specifically stated that you could find them if you did a little research.

What's more, some scientists who fail to toe the line with their AGW colleagues, have been so intimidated by their peers, that the research either doesn't get published or is never completed.

Frey
... says:

"According to the Royal Society paper, the solar output has been decreasing for the past ten years or so. Not by much, but I fail to see how the sun can be causing warming when it's been cooling (and has lower sunspot activity)."

This would actually accord well with the slight observed cooling in global average temperature for the past 10 years (specifically since 1998).

Of course, one factor influencing the higher average temps of the 1990s was the post-Soviet-collapse closure of more than 1400 weather monitoring stations in the coldest regularly-monitored parts of the globe. How much of an influence that was is a fair question, but simply dismissing it would be scientifically inane.

I'm not UNconvinced that average observed temperature is 0.6 C higher now than it was in 1850. But neither am I convinced that average observed temperature over the period 1850-2007 has been recorded on a basis so thorough and uniform that we can make all the claims that are made about it today, as a representation of absolute reality, or as a manifestation of any particular influence on climate.

Attitudes on catastrophic AGW have much more to do with cosmological belief systems than with narrow interpretations of empirical data.

How come...
...AGW opponents and proponents are nearly always aligned on opposite sides of the political aisle? If it was pure science then there would be a more even distribution of liberals and conservatives on both sides of the discussion. And yet, it is nearly always liberals on the pro-AGW side and conservatives on the anti.

Why? Other than the political goals, that is.


RE: Frey
"Dude, calm down."

You and your ilk are flat out lying with the intention of siezing power by any means necessary. You and your ilk stop vomiting nonsense and keep your greedy hands off of my wallet and I'll calm down.

And if "cherry picking data" means "debunking the myth of AGW", then you're right.

And Dr. Richard Lidzen is one of the world's leading scholars in the field of meteorology on this planet. I think he knows a bit more about weather and climate than you or AlGore® will ever know.

As for economic damage, how about the writing Indur Goklany has done on behalf of the Department of Interior where, in his studies, he found that, assuming your worst case scenerios come true (and elephants start flying), simply dealing with the consequences that worst case would cost far, far, FAR less than ANY of the proposals by the AGW kooks (and the AGW kooks even ADMIT that those proposals would do virtually nothing to effect global temperature)?

RE: Frey
"If there is one, where is it? Show me the link, and tell me what publication it's in."

Are you really that dumb? So on one hand, none of the publications will print it because of their political bigotry, and on the other you want a publication its printed in? What a convenient catch-22, huh? You can claim "everyone agrees" simply because every publication is refusing to print anything that debunks the garbage you guys insist on repeating.

Beware the "Watermelons"
I scoff at AGW, but all policies that result in defunding the God-cursed Mohammedans are vital to the survival of the West. Solar power? Sure. Wind power? Bring it, even off Martha's Vineyard. Hydrogen cars? As soon as feasible. Drilling in ANWR? Not a moment too soon.

Kyoto? Utter suicidal foolishness.

I'm with Gunny Ermey on this one: the Watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) is the enemy.

Nanuq
I think the perception of a hard conservative/liberal divide on AGW has to do with the political implications of the issue (economy, environment, etc.) and the types of individuals who choose to speak out on the subject. Among those who do not speak out, I'm sure there is a wide range of opinions that don't fit the black/white stereotypes we tend to attach to liberals and conservatives, just as there is on any subject. I do agree, though, that if the science was irrefutable, there would be more universal agreement on the issue.

Could it be that you sometimes assume the political leanings of the person depending on their opinion on AGW?








RE: Frey
No one, even those who laugh at you AGW kooks, disagrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. NO ONE.

The debate is HOW MUCH of an impact CO2 has, and so far even the AGW kooks can only admit that CO2 constitutes 3% of the total greenhouse effect. Water vapor alone constitutes about 75% of the greenhouse effect. Or, to put it in the way "The Father of Global Warming" put it, you can spit out your front door and have more of an impact on global temperatures than doubling the amount of CO2 in the air.

The debate also centers on what the impact of global warming would be. You AGW kooks simply forget to open your history books to see what the impact of previous warming and cooling has been (Or worse: Grab the whiteout and try to erase history, a la Michael Mann. Now why would you kooks want to go and do that if you were only interested in science?).

Take, for example, your ridiulous notions on malaria. You claim global warming would increase malaria rates significantly even though today the regions that have the worst malaria problems are mostly cooler regions (like Russia), and that your absurd predictions utterly contradict what the premier malaria expert has said (Paul Reiter, who quit the IPCC in disgust and threatened to sue them if they didn't remove his name from the sham report).

beowulfe
if plants use CO2 wouldn't more of that gas encourage plant growth. Not being a botanist I have always wondered if this might actually be beneficial for plant production

wildwest
Does this Bill Steigerwald article mean we can tell Global Warming Alarmists to "Stuff it" and just go on using all the toilet paper we want to?

http://www.liberalwhiners.com/print.php?a=1218

RE: wildwest
"if plants use CO2 wouldn't more of that gas encourage plant growth. Not being a botanist I have always wondered if this might actually be beneficial for plant production"

Ah, but according to the UN and their Kyoto Treaty discussions, those evil plants, when they die, produce even more greenhouse gases like methane and (I think) nitrous oxide! We need to destroy the world's plantlife, else we're going to all fall into the sun and be scorched to death!

question
If the sun melts the glaciers doesn't it stand to reason that increased heat also increases evaporation of same water?

Rick J
You stole my thunder! I want a T-shirt that says that! Stop Continentl Drift!!! Hooo YEAH! Priceless!

When I was in elementary school
back in the 50's, we used to get a weekly newspaper called the "Weekly Reader". I'll never forget that there were articles trying to frighten us about the coming "ice age" that was inevitable in the next 20 years. I guess they forgot to tell God!

CO2
I cannot believe the CO2 scam. Hey, y'all. We're all polluters everytime we exhale! What to do???

my opine
I have to pass on the toliet paper. I made a pledge to cheryl crow that as long as I could watch her use only two squares I would try and do the same

mrs paddy
the only way to save the earth is for all of us to die. Oh course I think alldull should lead by example

Global warming hysteria
“Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
Professor Bob Carter
Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University, Australia

“The greenhouse effect may play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperature is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It’s pure guesswork.”
Henrik Svensmark
Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research
Danish National Space Center, 10/4/2006

“An analysis carried out by Citizens for a Sound Economy shows that fully 90 percent of the ‘scientists’ who have signed a letter frequently cited by [Clinton-Gore] administration officials as evidence of scientific consensus on global warming are not qualified to be called experts on the issue. The letter, circulated by the environmental group Ozone Action, offers the names of some 2,600 alleged experts on climate change – only one of whom is, in fact, a climatologist. Among these so-called ‘experts on global warming are a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, one hotel manager, a gynecologist, seven linguists and even one person whose background is traditional Chinese medicine.”
The Heartland Institute, 1997

“If long-term trends are accepted as a valid measure of climate change, then the air temperature and ice data do not support the proposed polar amplification of [CO2-induced] global warming. The potential importance of large-amplitude variability and numerous feedbacks involved in Arctic atmosphere-ice-ocean interactions implies that the Arctic poses severe challenges to generating credible model-based projections of climate change.”
Polyakov, Akasofu
and seven other colleagues
International Arctic Research Center,2002

“There is a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998”
The Telegraph [UK], 2006

Beo
"Are you really that dumb? So on one hand, none of the publications will print it because of their political bigotry, and on the other you want a publication its printed in?"

He's hiding it under his tinfoil hat!

Seriously, if you know where it is, show it to us. If you are making it up, then keep on blathering like you have so far.

To be fair, here's the TSI as measured by satelite since 1978:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

You've got your PMOD, your ACRIM, your IPMB composites. All of them show no trend, only the 11 year solar cycle.

Also of note is that 2002 was the high point of the current cycle, not 1998 as has been speculated earlier in the thread. 1998 was the strongest el nino on record, so that is why it is an outlier in the temp data.

Crawfish
You and I must have grown up at the same time. When did the Ice Age mantra change to Global Warming? I missed it! When I use this argument on the hysterical folk who swallow AlGore's nonsense hook, line and sinker, they just shake their heads and say, "Well, no wonder you don't believe in GW."

People (as Chicken Little illustrates) will believe anything, especially if it is gloom and doom. I point to "The population Bomb" as well. Yep, that massive starvation in the US by the mid-80's was just horrible.

GW hysteria defies common sense. Maybe we should call for a moratorium on exhaling.

Wildwest
Agree with your post, but Al doesn't do anything by example...at least not an example I want to follow.

RE: Dave C
Hey man, don't you know that those are all just cronies that Exxon/Mobile and BushCo paid off? There isn't a single scientist on planet Earth that isn't paid off that doubts that CO2 is causing us to all fall into the sun! 100% of the world's scientists agree that we all need to discontinue polluting the air, and we need to hold our breath from now on!

RE: Crimson2
"Also of note is that 2002 was the high point of the current cycle, not 1998 as has been speculated earlier in the thread."

Uh, no one said that 1998 was the "high point". I merely pointed out the FACT, which you have just confirmed, that 1) the solar activity of 1998 was greater than the solar activity is right now, and 2) that the temperature was higher in 1998 than it is right now. I also pointed out the FACT that since at least the 1870s, solor activity, and NOT CO2 levels, have nearly perfectly traced what our global temperature has been.

How about you find JUST ONE CREDIBLE (read: if Michael Mann had anything to do with it, don't bother posting it) study that contradicts any of those FACTS that I presented. I'll wait.

If you found a planet...
...with nobody on it and sent one man down there and he lit one camp fire would that change the atmosphere of the planet? Of course it would, you may have a real hard time measuring it but it would change. But Chicken Little is wrong, he sky is not falling and humans, specifically humans in the United States, are not pulling it down.

The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago an ice sheet covered much of North America and another most of the Northern Eur-Asian land mass. These ice sheets were nearly two miles thick, thats over 10,500 feet of ice. Now if the ice age ended 10,000 years ago that is an average melt of over one foot of ice a year. Now, I'm pretty sure it didn't take all 10,000 years for that ice to melt off so that means the melt was a lot more than one foot a year.

If you can show me where "man made" global warming is having an impact anywhere near melting down a block of ice the size of two continents at a rate even approaching a foot of thickness per year, then you will have my attention. As it stands all the glacial shrinkage and ice berg calving people are becoming hysterical over doesn't amount to a drop in the bucket.

Global warming is an industry, you can even buy stock in it as Carbon Offsets, it provides a stage for self important people to become even more self important and generates grant money for other people to live off of and perform "studies".

The Left constantly belittles George Bush as being an imbecile but blindly believe in the chuckle-head who couldn't beat the imbecile.

Hey, minky ...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there something in the news a few months back about the US Meteorological society that was threatening meteorologists with sanctions if they came out against AGW? I think they were going to remove their accreditation or something like that. So much for freedom of thought.

dyerje
"Of course, one factor influencing the higher average temps of the 1990s was the post-Soviet-collapse closure of more than 1400 weather monitoring stations in the coldest regularly-monitored parts of the globe. How much of an influence that was is a fair question, but simply dismissing it would be scientifically inane."

That would be a factor if we figured one average, worldwide temperature every year and used that (and if climate scientists were complete idiots). But that's not the case. What climate scientists use is the temperature change, compiled from each station. Also, climate scientists are claiming the greatest change where? In the Arctic region, where those weather stations went off-line. So, if there was an effect, it would be the effect of under-estimating temperature change, not over-estimating it.

dyerje
Try this thought experiment: Put a thermometer in the refrigerator. Put one in the Dining Room. Put one in the Family Room. Wait 10 min and average the temps. Remove the thermometer from the refrigerator and throw it away. Wait ten minutes. Average the temperatures on the remaining thermometers.

Did your house get warmer or colder based on these readings?

Take a look at what REAL climate scientists are writing - as opposed to Divinity-school flunk-out (how do you flunk out of Divinity School?) Al. Then THINK.

Your opinion really doesn't matter - facts are like gravity - doesn't matter if you don't believe.

Minky
"My claim was NOT that the research was suppressed completely. I specifically stated that you could find them if you did a little research."

Sincere apologies, minky. But if the suppression is incomplete, that still begs the question, if there are valid scientific papers that contradict the Royal Society paper, where are they? I've been doing more than a little research, and I've seen a number that claim to, but none that actually do (and very few that actually try).

Frey
Given that Nature did a full and complete retraction on the Hockey Stick argument used by Al to posit anthropegenic warming, given that the lead Climatologist at MIT thinks it's nonsense, given that the first Canadian to gain a PhD in Climate Science thinks it's bunk, given that the text of the IPCC report does not match the hysteria of the Exec Overview, given that even if you like the IPCC report - it posits a sea-level rise of 12-18 INCHES over 100 years, rather than the 20 FEET Al posits, and given the quotations I already supplied from REAL scientisits (rather than the gynecologists signing Al's petition) - why, exactly, do you require additional papers? Are you having trouble reading the above?


True Believers
OK. You believe, against all statements by real scientisits, that Al knows the TRUTH.

So - what do you want to do about it?

Here's how treaties are put into force:
1. They're negotiated
2. They're presented by the Executive to the Senate for an up/down vote
3. They assume the force of law.

So... what about Kyoto?

1. It was negotiated. And before the American delegation went to Kyoto, the Senate took an advisory vote on the then-current (and final) language. The Senate voted 95-0 AGAINST the language in the treaty. August, 1997. Al Gore was Pres pro Tem of the Senate.
2. On final passage by the Kyoto folks, it was presented to the Executive (Clinton), who had one of his low-level staffers sign it. Since Treaties don't need to be signed by the Executive, this was just for show. Clinton NEVER submitted it to the Senate for ratification. (Why bother? They'd just voted it down 95-0.)
3. It isn't law. Bush has nothing to do about it - the Executive Branch already signed it. What do you want W to do? Sign it again? And the Versailles Treaty? Should he sign that again, too?

In the meantime America has reduced GHG, and those countries who signed it have increased GHG. As in most Liberal idiocy - SAYING you're for something is more important than actually DOING something.

The American people spoke on this issue. What part of Democracy do you not like?

TurnLeft
"You can bash Al Gore all you want, but in the meantime he has 98% of the world's scientists AND Exxon-Mobil and Ford on his side"

I don't believe he has 98% of the scientists, on his side. As a matter of fact i have seen substantial evidence that it isn't even close to that! If that were so, it still wouldn't make them correct. The truth is whatever it is, science isn't a consensus game in which we vote on a theory to determine it's correctness.

As for Ford, they will jump on a bandwagon to sell cars and Exxon is doing PR to show how "environmentally" sensitive they are.

The CO2 increases come AFTER the warming. CO2 causes global warming just like intestinal gas distress causes BEANS.

Frey -- Solar warming
>In all that time, I have never seen a paper that
>shows that the current warming is due to the sun.
>If there is one, where is it? Show me the link, and
>tell me what publication it's in.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark

FROG
I have that article you mention in your 3:14 post but I can't locate it.
Thought you might like this link though.
http://suppressednews.com/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?id=EEZAupkVyAVAGAAjQe&tmpl=offsitenews

TurnLeft
Reality check, dude:

Not only does he not have "98%" of the scientists on his side (read up a few posts and you'll see correct quotes regarding "scientists" who have joined AL's bandwagon), here's a little education on science and consensus from Lindzer @ MIT. He's a real scientist, not a landscape architect.

" “With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is that science is the source of authority, and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree]. But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science – consensus is foreign.”
Dr Richard Lindzen


“Why are the opinions of scientists sought [about global warming] regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when it comes to global warming, any scientist’s agreement will do.”
Dr Richard Lindzen

Frey
"And are ALL the planets getting warmer? I'd heard it was Mars, Neptune, and maybe Pluto. What's happening with the others?"

YES!

Crawfish and Miss Paddy
It wasn't just Weekly Reader - TIME had a cover in 1976 about the "Coming Ice Age," Simply EVERYBODY who was ANYBODY believed it, dahling... just like now...

“The advent of a new ice age, scientists say, appears to be guaranteed. The devastation will be astonishing.”
Gregg Easterbrook, Newsweek, 11/92

“The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
Nigel Calder, 1975

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization and exploding urban population.”
Reid Bryson, 1971

“The rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is also in accord with increased air pollution associated with industrialization and an exploding population.”
Reid Bryson, 1971

So much for the morons of the elite media -- I'm sorry, was I redundant?

Solar Output isn't Constant
If you would like more info on that, just log onto the NOAA site and put in the key words "solar constant"

http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Someone Asked If increasing CO2...
Makes plants grow faster. It does and the faster plants grow, the faster they remove CO2 from the air, so, it tends to be self-limiting.

Greenhouse owners know that their plants grow 40% faster if they raise the CO2 level in the greenhouse from the 360 PPMv ambient, to 1,000 PPMv (still only 1/10 of one percent of the air in the greenhouse).

Dave C
Thanks. I'm enjoying the posts here. Usually this subject just annoys the heck out of me, but today I think it is funny. Wish everybody else could see the humor and laugh Al right off his high horse. ChickenLittle is alive and well.

Frey
If the sun's activity has been cooling the last ten years, and let's assume for the moment that is true, it changes nothing. Just as the hottest time of day is between 2-4 PM, after the sun has passed its zenith, the hottest time of the year is one to two months after the summer solstice, the coldest time of year is a month after the winter equinox, what is so hard to grasp about a delayed effect of solar activity?


Dave C makes stuff up...
"Given that Nature did a full and complete retraction on the Hockey Stick argument used by Al to posit anthropegenic warming.."

Shenanigens! This never happened. Please provide a link to this Nature reatraction.

I'm also laughing at your other points, Lindzen as MIT's top climatologist, lol..


So,...
Why is it that AlGore's GW speaking engagements seem to be accompanied by unseasonable ice storms so often?

Could it be Mother Gaia saying:
"Hey, Al! I got yer Global Warming - Right Here!"


Just sayin' is all.

- MuscleDaddy

For those duped by Algore.
There is a site like scambusters that specializes in debunking science scams.
http://www.junkscience.com has all the details on the AGW hoax.

FROG
You're probably referring to the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen, who is billed as a "climate expert". She proposed that since the American Meteorological Society had issued a statement endorsing the anthropogenic greenhouse gas theory of warming as a "major agent of climate change", that all meteorologists who "can't speak to the science of climate change" should not carry the AMS Seal of Approval. According to her, "If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming". Then she adds (and this is great) "(One good resource if you don't have a lot of time is the Pew Center's Climate Change 101.).

So there you have it. A quick way to become "truly educated".

I have a major problem with this. If weather is a totally different matter than climate change (and I agree it is), what business does a TV meteorologist have even mentioning climate change.


I think this sums it up best....
The Sky Is Falling, also known as Chicken Little or Henny Penny, is an old fable about a chicken (or hare in early versions who believes the sky is falling. The phrase has also become used to indicate hysterical or mistaken belief that a disaster is imminent.

Basic plot

There are many versions of the story, but the basic premise is that while a chicken called Chicken Little eats lunch one day an acorn falls on her head and makes her believe the sky is falling. She decides to tell the King, and on her journey meets other animals who join her quest. Finally they come accross Foxy Loxy, a fox who offers Chicken Little and her friends help.

After this point, there are many endings. In the most famous one Foxy Loxy eats Chicken Little's friends, but one survives enough to warn Chicken Little so she can escape.

Depending on the version of the end used the moral changes. In the happy ending version, the moral is not to be a "Chicken Little" and have courage. In other versions the moral is "do not believe everything you are told". In the later case, it could be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Little jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the fox uses to manipulate them for his own benifit.
****

The later moral and the cautionary political tale best fit the global warming movement (or for those that wich to use the PC term, climate change movement).

The earth has gone through many climate changes, many before man was a factor. The cycle we see today is yet another of many, with many natural factors contributing to the changes.

The actions of man could be a factor, but not the only cause.

Ignoring the Obvious
Well, based on 112 of the previous 113 comments, it seems that everyone can argue about the science of global warming but no one can explain how Al Gore came up with what he says is the correct temperature of our little planet.

This is like trying to prove a murder case without a victim. You can argue all the evidence you want, but without someone actually dead or at least missing, it's all a waste of time.

All Al and his friends did was to wake up one day and say to themselves "Wow, it's hot today. Yesterday was much nicer. Obviously the temperature was correct yesterday but is wrong today. I'll have to fix that."

But how does one decide at what point in its 4.6 billion year existence the planet's temperature was "just right"? Minus an absolute answer to what the temperature is "supposed" to be, this whole argument is pure political BS.

Turn Left RE: Al Gore et al
Al gore has a financial stake in the global warming (climate chnage) movement. One of his corporations sells carbon offsets, thus he makes money off those who wish to buy their way into feeling as if they are contributing to the movement.

As for the scientists that back back Al Gore, they too have a financial stake. They get funding to study global warming (climate change). If they conclude that global warming (climate change is not man made or doesn't pose a threat then the funding dries up.

Corporations who back the global warming (climate change) movement also do so for financial gain. For example: Ford wants to capitolize on the public desire to help the environment so they put an effort towards making "green" or environmentally friendly products.

I'm all for technology that reduces our CO2 emissions AND helps business and the free market. They way to do that is let the market demand (those that buy the products) encourage business to do it on it's own and not by the government forcing it via legislation.

just paul
the head of nasa said at a press conference that no scientist knows what the ideal temperature of our planet is or should be. Study has indicated that the planet has at times been even warmer than today and likewise much cooler. Thus how can alldull, just a very average or more likely below average college student with no science background reach conclusions that men of science who work in this field cannot say as certain. Seems another case like the Mass. supremes who found a heretofor unknown interpretation of the constitution that allowed gay marriage.

It's warm
because it's summer. Newsflash: It will be cold come winter. There hasn't been news of a single hurricane yet, much less a major one, this year, though we're in the midst of the season. Did GHG destroy West Africa-the source of our hurricanes-and we just haven't heard about it?

Greenland once had vineyards. Ice sheets once covered the northern US.

And Algore is a dunce.


justpaul writes:
You are right about it being pure political BS.

There is no "correct temperature".

Even if you look at recorded historical climate data for a given regio n of the globe that doesn't determine the correct temperature should be. There are parts of Canada which are now almost constantly cold and frozen which once were tropical forests.

We can do our best to eliminate our negative impact on the environment. We could replant trees to compensate for those we cut down, we could do away with all fossil fuel use, and it still would not stop a major climat change event such as we have discovered evidence of.

For our own sake should we try to do as little harm as possible? Sure. Should we get all hysterical and predict global gloom and doom if we don't do it immediately? No.

Global warming is a tax scam
If the sun causes warming even AL gore would admit we cant do anything about it. Obviously it has to be something that the intellecturals can control. Thats your tax dollars. We need another 3 million people on the payroll gumming up the works. Lets regulate the amount of air people breath and methane that they outgas. Obese people beware they will tax you more. Burn your SUV's at the stake, while the flit around on private jets. Carbon coupon's anyone?

Typos
That is what I get for not proof reading beofore I hit "post". :)

Walking vs. Driving
I read somewhere this week that walking releases more "harmful" CO2 gases into the atmosphere than driving an equal distance. Therefore, everybody should drive instead of walking.

Wow
HAven't seen so many conspiracy theorists since I checked out 911Truth. Good luck with your UFO recoveries as well.


If I could find someone...
that could tell me each Monday what next weekend's weather would be like, and be right at least 70% of the time, I MIGHT listen to what he thinks about this issue. But AL GORE? I don't trust him to accurately tell me what the weather is RIGHT NOW, even if he's standing outside!

??!!?!?!?!???!!!!??
"Greenland once had vineyards"

What utter nonsense.

Typos
I don't think it is us Chris.
Do you notice how there are never any spelling errors or typos until just after you hit the Post button and it turns color and it is too late to fix anything there is a slight delay before the post and that is when the mistrake pops up?

I think the Moderator is playing practical jokes.

TH survives in any event and everyone deciphers the errors ok.

Crimson2 $100,000
Go over to "junk science" they have a $100,000 prize offer to anyone who can prove that CO2 causes global warming. That should be easy for you, IF you have any idea what your talking about.

CO2 causes global warming the same way that poopy diapers cause babies and forest fires cause matches.

ONCE UPON A TIME Chicken Little
The atmosphere contained ten times the CO2 it does now (Jurrassic Period)

Why didn't the Earth burn up?

yosemite
I have it on good authority that a consensus of scientists agree that
1. Yosemite valley was formed by glacial action
2. The glacier that formed Yosemite valley is no longer there.
3. The melting of the glacier was caused by the warming of the ice of said glacier.
4. The warming of the ice that caused said glacier to melt happened long before man invented cars, let alone SUV's.

Better worry....
...about the problems of the next few years and stop concerning ourselves with con-men who have us believe that 1 degree average means anything. Gore is starstruck and can't stand to be out of the spotlight. He's just an overweight rich "kid" who wants to be taken seriously after sitting at the "feet of the Clintons" all those years.

crimson2
what conspiracy theories are you talking about

to Crimson2 who wrote:
Tuesday, August, 07, 2007 7:29 PM
??!!?!?!?!???!!!!??
"Greenland once had vineyards"
What utter nonsense.
===================
In point of fact, the Vikings found Greenland to be, indeed, a green land. Look it up.

The Skeptical Environmentalist
I highly recommend The Skeptical Environmentalist. It's a bit of a thick tome, but very interesting.

Forgot the author
The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg

songo
I am not a scientist and other than a few course in hs and college don't really have much of a science background. For my information. What is the percentage of CO2 in the air and how much has it increased over the past century. If you clear up for me I will have a better understanding of global warming

Response to the Earth has a Temperature
Wow, you know what's fun? I have a T shirt with a picture of earth...kind of like a cartoon with two big eyes frowning that says "I feel Fine!" You wouldn't believe the looks I get when I wear it. Great fun. One guys said to me "Do you really think so?" and I responded "Absolutely!"

Read my blog on TH
I wrote a blog about this subject on 10 July...gee, ahead of the curve. See Mrs Paddy Too

mrs paddy
check out alldull's comments about news coverage of global warming doubters in the news section of TH. alldull is having a tantrum

Wildwest
RE: Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You're not alone. Most people have no idea that all this fuss is about a mere 360 PPM (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is only .036%. That's not a misprint. that is 36 thousandths of one percent. (earlier, in my haste, I stated hundredths, it is THOUSANDTHS).

Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. The percentage of water vapor varies all over the place from 4% down to less than 1%, but the highest water vapor levels, as you might imagine, are in the tropics where the greatest solar gain is, typically around 3% to 3.5%.

At 3% there is a little more than 83 times as much water vapor as there is CO2.

If I told you that WATER VAPOR is the most important greenhouse gas would you be surprised?

wally
thanks I knew the rough numbers, I am sure that most of alldull's supporters can't comprehend this tiny percentage. I was curious to see songo attempt to describe the massive increase the global warming crowd sees as ending life as we know it. Other posters have stated that since plants live on CO2 that increased amounts of the gas aid plant growth. That seems plausible to me. Again thanks for the info

It's the proximal conditions, stupid.
Yes, the Sun is hot and it is its heat that provides most of our heat here on Earth (there is geothermal stuff, too, but that's for another day).

Yes, here on Earth the temperature due to the Sun's rays can raise temperatures into the triple digits on the Fahrenheit scale (I've been in 122°F temperatures, 50°C, and it's no picnic).

BUT... at midday if you journey toward the Sun (that is, vertically upward from our perspective), it gets colder. In tropical Hawaii, for example, the part of the state closes to the state closest to the Sun is the coldest. The same is true almost everywhere where mountains are found. Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Whitney, the Rockies, Everest, etc., are four to ten kilometers closer to the Sun than Honolulu, Los Angeles, etc., but they are colder.

Get on an airplane, where you're six miles closer to the Sun, and the temperature outside will kill you. Go into space, and you would freeze instantly. Go even further, and you are talking temperatures so cold as to be unimaginable.

Because, you see, it is the mixture of THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATMOSPHERE and the sun's rays that make the heat we need to thrive on.

continued...
Just as with pH levels, a little change can make a huge difference. The notion that spewing unnatural particulate and gaseous matter into space might have some significant effect on the atmosphere and the environment is not some sort of chicanery, it's real. We see it all the time, in large doses and small.

Now, having read a great deal about this subject since the 1980s, I lend credence to the notion of global warming due to human activities. Nevertheless, I do recognize that there is the possibility, however small, that this may turn out to be wrong or at least slightly off.

But, what damage is there in NEVERTHELESS working toward reducing polluting emissions? What harm is there in reducing CO2 output by reducing energy consumption? The spillover effect would be enormously positive, even if it turned out that global warming were completely wrong. Imagine developing solar and battery technology well enough that the sun constantly beating down on our homes were enough to supply our heating and energy needs? Imagine developing safe nuclear facilities and reasonable methods of waste storage so that we can power industry? Imagine not needing the hydrocarbon fuels that not only dictate our foreign policy but also pollute our cities with all matter of gaseous and particulate toxins?

If preparations against global warming were to bring these things about, then I'm for it.

Sue the Sun!
Those concerned about "Global Warming" should go to the World Court and sue the Sun for damages.

Crimson 2 Like I said about Gravity...
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT; member of the National Academy of Sciences, former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now - I know you think Al Gore is A) smarter, and B) more knowledgeable about climate change. The question is: Why on earth would you believe that; better stated, why would any sentient being believe that? (Of course I acknowledge this leaves out Liberals.)

So - not only is he MIT's top Climatologist (LOL or not), but he even was on the IPCC for some time and is more than passingly familiar with the work and the publications.

Below for other responses to your inane post. Isn't gravity a problem?

Crimson 2 (more gravity)
You're right - it was the National Academy of Sciences that totally debunked the Hockey Stick argument:

"Nature never verified that data were correctly listed: as it happens they weren't. Nature never verified that data archiving rules were followd: they weren't. Nature never verified that methods were accurately stated: they weren't. Nature never verified that stated methods yield stated results: they don't. Nature undertook only minimal corrections to its publication record after notification of these things, and even allowed the authors to falsely claim that their omissions on these things didn't affect their published results. The IPCC' use of the Hockey Stick was not incidental: it is prominent throughout the 2001 report. yet they did not subject it to any independent checking."
-S. McIntyre, R. McKitrick, 11/14/05 //sciencepolicy.colorado.edu

In fact, if you input random numbers to the hockey stick algorithms you get - a HOCKEY STICK! If this sounds like freshman High School science flunk-outs' science, you're probably right.

Crimson 2 has got to be a plant, right?
He (she) doesn't know that Greenland was called - stop me if you've heard this - "GREEN LAND" - because it was... uhhh... GREEN. And he knows less than nothing about the plants cultured there by the Vikings... and still expects people to take his (her?) arguments seriously?

Why?

Folks - look at the quotes from real climate scientists (provided above), balance them against a failed senator who couldn't even carry his own state (those who knew him best) in a presidential election - and even that after he invented the internet, and ask yourself why on earth anyone listens to this idiot. He is seriously dumber'n'dirt.

The hockey stick also skips the Midieval Warming Period (why Greenland was Green), and the Little Ice Age that ended at the end of the Nineteenth Century. Easy to make a graph you want when you leave out inconvenient truths -- like the two biggest climate changes since Man learned to write...

Wake up - Warming is a scam. You can believe whatever you want, but please don't vote unless you know the facts, OK?

Isn't it interesting that Crimson2 hasn't responded to my post re: what to do about it and whose administration didn't submit it to the Senate and waht happened when the Senate voted pre-conference?

purplestar
If you really believe Warming to be anthropogenic:

How about nuclear reactors? No GHG, right?
How about more glass beads in highway paint - studies have shown this will reflect enough IR to begin cooling the planet (Even more since it began cooling on its own in 1998, btw).
A (real) scientist has proposed using the phytoplankton that consume CO2 and iron dust to absorb large amounts of CO2 if people still want to believe in it: "You give me a tanker full of iron dust and I'll give you a new Ice Age."

But of course this is all technology at work, and since the arguments to "do something" about anthropogenic warming all require more government, more taxes, less productivity, and more poor people (hundreds of millions), then that's just what Liberals really want and that's what the argument is really about.

No - I'm not a consipracy theorist - but given the ways to attack the perceived problem that are ignored (all technical ones) with the only (acceptable) way to address the non-issue being more taxes and less productivity, you don't really think this is about warming, do you? If so, please get back to me in ten years when the media have decided that the next Ice Age is coming and "everyone" agrees.... OK?

Do two things for me, OK? Look up "Malthusian," amd look up "Luddite." Then go and look in the mirror.

Three things: don't ever vote again. We'll all be better off without your votes.

If Greenland was at one time green...
... then was Iceland covered in ice?

innovations over restrictions
< < But of course this is all technology at work, and since the arguments to "do something" about anthropogenic warming all require more government, more taxes, less productivity, and more poor people (hundreds of millions), then that's just what Liberals really want and that's what the argument is really about. > >

Yeah, yeah. All liberals do is sit around and fantasize about ways to expand government and make people poor. The idea that they want people of all classes to be healthy and happy is hogwash.

Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that curbing pollution requires a big price tag. Indeed, it is technological advances that will be what reduces emissions, particulate matter, and other forms of pollution. How much money did it cost the government of California, for example, to push no-emissions and low-emissions standards on the Big Three and foreign automakers so they could continue to sell their goods in California during the 21st century? Not much at all, but that push got them to work on technologies that were dead in the water before.

Incentives will generally work better than restrictions, and it's almost always better to unleash creativity than to nickel-and-dime people and corporations. The same is true for curbing or eliminating pollution and finding innovative ways to protect the environment.


< < Three things: don't ever vote again. We'll all be better off without your votes. > >

Ah, and there's the conservative fantasy: prevent those who might disagree with you from voting. Maybe I should post my real name so that I'll end up on a list of convicted felons to be barred from voting.


Purplestater
You state that whether or not CO2 and man-made factors contribute to GW is irrelevant to the notion we should use smarter technologies. I am one of those anti-GW theorists (because it is ONLY a theory when applied as a man-made factor) that happens to believe we should be working on smarter technologies. I would be great to have more solar, wind, geo-thermal and nuclear energy. What I object to is the ridiculous hype that is spewed by Gore and the media...as if GW is all settled science and it is fact.

There should be better ways to present incentives to energy independence than scaring adults and children with the loss of cuddly polar bears and flooded cities.

If you are unable to see it as a scam (however well-meaning most people may be) then you are not paying attention. Weigh the costs and the benefits. I think ADAPT. I think, have a little faith in God's creation. I think, stop wringing hands and do the sensible things that would improve our life and that of our children.

I am particularly outraged by the indoctrination of our children and the ads currently on TV that perpetuate this gloom and doom scenario that use children with sad faces and pledges to leave the earth a better place etc. etc.

It is nonsense. Look at the costs of Kyoto for the infintesimal 'benefit.'

Just because I don't believe in the GW hype, however, doesn't mean I am opposed to protecting the environment. It just needs to make sense.

wildwest
Thanks for the link to Al's hissy fit. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, wouldn't you say?

If you are really worried about C02
You can do a couple of things. Plant a try, water your flowers. Dont breath.
For those that dont believe its the sun check out what photons do to oxygen molecules when the collide.

Frey and Dave C
Try again, gentlemen. The figure of 0.6 C is arrived at through an averaging process. Whichever one you pick -- arithmetic, geometric, whatever -- you are still engaged in averaging. Whether you choose to average the temperatures themselves, or the changes in temperatures, you are still averaging. Whether you aggregate all temperature observations first and then average, or take an average in the aggregate only after establishing an average for each monitoring station, you are still averaging, to get to a figure of 0.6 C. That figure, BTW, represents an aggregate of observed temperature changes, of which some are UP and some are DOWN.

Removing 1400 monitoring stations changes the population basis for averaging, at the very least. It's highly unlikely that the absence of those stations was neutral in the production of averages AFTER their demise vice BEFORE. It could only be neutral if observations at those stations exactly matched the trend of the global average, however it was taken.

You may agree with the scientists who dispute the very validity of the averaging methods used, and the 0.6 C warming figure. Cool. If one does agree that a valid average can be obtained only from a single station over time, let's boogie. Some of them are UP since the 1970s. Some of them are DOWN. You can only get a global trend result by... averaging them.

Greenland
Greenland was called "green" more for promotional purposes than anything else (look THAT up). But vineyards in Greenland? That's a joke. The Vikings did herd some sheep--which they kept indoors for six months of the year. But Greenland has tons of sheep today, so what is your point?

Vineyards. lol.




Greenland
Vineyards may be laughable, but it does not mean that the Medievel Warm Period didn't happen, nor that the Vikings were not able to live and raise livestock among the trees and grasses.

So, what do you think caused the MWP (Medievel warm period?) How many people? How many SUVs? Gas-powered engines? You know, all those things blamed for GW.

Imagine a Neanderthal Al Gore
Imagine that, 50,000 years ago, at the beginning of the last great ice age, a neanderthal Al Gore went around preaching that mankind was responsible for the apparent cooling of the planet. Imagine that he managed to convince enough people that rather than adapting to the new environment mankind should devote itself to stopping the change in temperature.

Had this happened, we might not even be here today to notice "global warming".

Rather than arguing about who's responsible for an event we can't even prove is happening, let alone prove that it's anyone's fault, and which, either way, we have no way of stopping, shouldn't we be talking about what we should do to make sure that hundreds of millions of people do not die over the next 100 years because they were too stupid to get out of the sun or move out of the floodplain?

Songo
Oh Yeh lets concentrate on the typos after all we cant on the science because its bogus

ugh
"So, what do you think caused the MWP (Medievel warm period?) How many people? How many SUVs? Gas-powered engines? You know, all those things blamed for GW."

Even if we assume the MWP was global, no one argues that it wasn't caused by natural forces. But that is absolutely not the case now. CO2 is a GHG. Adding more will increase surface temperature. This is well known, even if the right wing can't seem to grasp it.


man made vs Natural
The argument is not if an increase in CO2 will raise tempeture its a question of:
1. Is global warming / cooling a natural cycle?
2.Do man made emissions have a significant effect on this cycle.
3. Are there other natural events that have a much more significanty effect? 4. Given the potential economic impacts a significant reduction in man made emissions would cost is it justified to do so?
5. Would that reduction have any effect?

Crimson2 / Songo I challenge you
Look at the SCIENCE instead of just the philosophical arguments. I challenge you to refute the theory in the following web site which is, in essence, that the human contribution to total greenhouse gasses is less than 1%. Since you are such astute scientists, tell me where THESE scientists missed the mark. I don't think you can!
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

BTW Crimson, Verizon is the host of the web site. It is not a "Verizon site" as you previously snidely remarked.

DO THE MATH, then tell me you still have faith in the anthropogenic global warming religion.

If the computer models don't fit the reality, Its not the reality that's wrong. GIGO
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.