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
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Dan Gainor :: Townhall.com Columnist
We'll Pry Global Warming From Their Cold, Dead Hearts
by Dan Gainor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


This is the winter of environmentalists’ discontent. They desperately want the earth to be warming to prove Al Gore’s truth inviolate and they are going to make you pay thousands of dollars for it no matter whether it’s true or not.

But the weather has been inconveniently cold. Thirty-two states have experienced record or near-record lows this winter – poking holes in the predictions of imminent fiery doom. Just ask the diehard global warming activists who showed up in Washington last week to protest the nation’s use of coal. Their event was hampered by nearly a foot of snow in the nation’s capital – enough to freeze out luminaries like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Still, there they were, a couple thousand idiots standing in a winter wonderland, chanting about global warming. What’s amazing is that NASA’s climate chief James Hansen was part of this foolishness. Here we have a man who the left keeps telling us is so smart we need to listen to everything he says and he doesn’t have the public relations sense of a freshman communications major.

I have a news flash for Mr. Hansen – it gets cold in the winter. Sometimes it snows – even in D.C. If you want to promote global warming, look at a thermometer and wait until that red stuff climbs up real high.

This would seem the basis of a good strategy. Cede the winter months to your critics and opponents and keep the global warming activism to times when you might actually get warm weather.

Only a fool would hold a global warming event in a foot of snow – unless he or she was desperate.

That desperation might get to the heart of the issue. Hansen recently told Britain’s Observer that time was running out – fast. “We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world.” Prince Charles, a fellow alarmist with a scientific resume as microscopic as Al Gore’s, recently declared we have “less than 100 months to act" on climate change.

But four years, eight years or Gore’s much-cited 10 years all add up to one thing. It’s not the planet that’s running out of time, it’s the environmentalists. The warming of the earth has flat lined like Tom Daschle’s political career.

In fact, now the theme – even from the global warming camp is … (drum roll, please) we could have up to three decades of cooling. Michael Reilly, of Discovery News, summed it up well: “Earth's climate continues to confound scientists.” He quoted a new study by Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, saying “global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.”

Just as the global warming reality is cooling, the opposition is heating up. This week marked the second annual “International Conference on Climate Change” in New York, sponsored by The Heartland Institute. It brought together hundreds of climate skeptics from around the world and was headlined by European Union President Vaclav Klaus.

Klaus got to the heart of the matter during his opening night address. The climate debate isn’t just about temperature, he told the gathering of scientists and public policy experts. He said “environmentalists want to change us and our behavior” because “their mission is control.”

They are working hard to take that control. Forget the laughably inept Kyoto treaty. Environmentalists and politicians are working to give birth to its bastard child of a successor in Copenhagen this December. The midwives are already prepping for the birth of this Frankenstein baby in the run up to the G-20 conference in April.

Advocates want the meeting of some of the world’s powerhouses to focus not just on economics but on going green. That way they can show they have all the major nations working together.

That’s not the only push for quick action. Denmark's minister for climate and energy, Connie Hedegaard, is urging Obama to ram through global warming laws prior to Copenhagen and Obama looks like he is doing as instructed. His cap-and-trade proposal is already on deck despite criticism that it will cost an already damaged economy an average of $2,180 a year. Even Obamaphile Warren Buffett says such a tax is “pretty regressive,” which means ordinary people will pay through the nose for it and elitists will fly around and tell us how to live.

With Democratic control of Congress virtually a lock, cap-and-trade could fly through faster than lies from the mouth of a politician. Just in time, perhaps, to encounter a problem that may well be going the opposite direction for 30 years.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and director of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
You forgot to mention
All the jobs that will be lost due to cap and trade. Obama will wreck more than a handfull of
Industries that you wont hear about on the msm,
he is even killing the corporate airline Industry, 18000 jobs yesterday by attacking private plane owners

Make No Mistake
'Climate Change' is all about enslaving you and giving control to the elite. And that is ALL its about. There is a time worn remedy known to all in dealing with tyranny.

Editor, please
I believe:

"...an already damaged economy an average of $2,180 a year ..."

was supposed to read:

"...an already damaged economy an average of $2,180 [per person] a year ..."

Which would be consistent with what I've been hearing and reading elsewhere.

Be True to Yourselves
Progressives would do the Earth a favor if they simply drop dead. Why so they continue to breath and exhale CO2? Hypocrites.

The only danger of global warming
occurring is the constant emissions of huge volumes of hot air from the gasbags promoting this scam.


No Mechanism
There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide to cause the global warming Algore and the other scam artists and communists claim.

I have done the research and been saying this is a scam for years. We should take away Gore's ill gotten gains from this scam and give it to the Madoff victims. That is redistribution of wealth we can believe in.

C'mon, people just sit back & relax
while President Odummy finishes off what's left of our once-great country.

BTW, will the last one to leave please turn out the lights? (Cap & trade thanks you)

I Got Your News Flash

Here's a news flash for you Dan Gainor: Everyone with an IQ above room temperature already knows it gets cold and snows in the winter. This shouldn't have to be explained, scientists shouldn't concern themselves with it when addressing the issue, and people like you and so many others here at Townhall need to quit wasting space and time writing about it.

Only a fool, or someone desperate or looney enough to see the scientific consensus on global warming as some sort of conspiracy, would attribute significance to someone's lack of concern over such irrelevancies. Anyone still wondering why the GOP is viewed as the anti-intellectual party, and why the rest of us(many of whom are former GOPers like me) see you as a joke, need look no further than this article as to why. It's embarrasing.

Science [fiction] Avenger
Your "scientific consensus" is a sham and has been proven as such. Projecting your ignorance upon us, those that look at the facts, is the definition of anti-intellectual.
It doesn't matter how many links we give you for respected scientists who use the facts to prove that AGW is a lie, you will just call those scientists lackeys for the oil companies.
Why was the earth warmer when dinosaurs were the king of the earth? Did dinosaur flatulence cause the "global warming" of the prehistoric days?
You can call us fools, but until you can prove that AGW is a fact, go back to trying to brainwash the morons at DailyKOS or HuffPO. On a serious note though, I'd like to say congratulations for finding enough braindead politicians to believe your load of cr@p.

Methusela
Science [fiction] Avenger
Your "scientific consensus" is a sham and has been proven as such.

Wow, Meth, don't you look silly. Please go on...

"Projecting your ignorance upon us, those that look at the facts, is the definition of anti-intellectual."

OK, should those of us with any degree of scientific knowledge even bother to talk to these nut-jobs any more? There are more links to "flat earth" and we don't take them seriously either.

Science [fiction] Avenger
consenus= opinion based on general agreement

The operative word here is "opinion", that's not science dude.

It might or might not be a conspiracy, but I know when I'm being hussled.




excuse the typo
hustled

Science Avenger
We are actually hoping more "former GOPers" arise as you did. The more half-wits out of our party the better.

inthemajority
WHAT, the earth ain't flat? Oh my God, are we all going to fall off?

DDL
What on earth do you think cooler weather will do but force us to produce more CO2? It didn't get warm enough to turn my furnace off last summer til the middle of June it was so cold. Normally I'd turn it off in April or May. How much extra CO2 is produced by cold temps? Tonight we're supposed to hit 0. That means raising the temp 68 degrees for most people (mine is set on 67) We're not talking about just homes, but businesses, hospitals, schools, and factories all having to burn more fuel when it's colder. Then there's the CO2 producing snow removal from vast numbers of parking lots, runways, city streets, rural roads, highways and interstates and spreading tons of salt and sand. Get real. The CO2 solution (if it needs one) is global warming.

Liberals' Logic Kills
DDL, is your brain frozen? It's the liberals and Democrats who ferociously support the destruction of human beings. Led by a Messiah who applauds the killing of babies even when, miraculously, they are born alive!

Chalk up millions of babies destroyed because Democrats support the right to kill the unborn.

And you're accusing Republicans and conservatives being anti-life! See if they'll accept you for a re-do of high school.

Does DDL stand for Dumb Dumb Liberal?
It's not real. That's why we don't believe in it. You people are grasping at straws to try and do the impossible, predict earths weather patterns. Sure we don't want someone dumping acid in a stream we fish in or water our families drink or swim in but you enviro-Mentalists are mindless zealots. You all just about pissed your pants when Al Bore came out with his convienient lies movie. You are incapable of rational thought and still refuse to believe that it was full of lies and inconsistencies. You refuse to address the ice age scare tatic of the 70's and explain why that one didn't come to be. And to your superiors(anyone above you sheep)it is about control. It has been stated and theorized many times before, that communists would be using this topic as a measure and tool of control. And they are, right here in the democratic party, US of A.




liberals kill kill babies out of hate


shubi correctly says,
"There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide to cause the global warming Algore and the other scam artists and communists claim.

I have done the research and been saying this is a scam for years."

I also have been doing research on the issue for decades. There is no doubt that "scam" is the correct designation. I've been using that same word in numerous writings for a long time.

I know some personally and have communicated professionally with several others of the attendees of this week's conference in NYC that Gainor mentioned. They are all extremely knowledgeable people with impeccable credentials.

Good debate
I know I have put this up before, those who have seen it before may be thinking I work on commission.

This is a good debate on climate change. Facts vs. speculation. Go to about 5:30 to see how well the global warming hypothesis stands up to the current data. Everyone can make up their own minds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACo2OCSJnBI



If there is "scientific consensus"
then the warm-mongers should argue for cutting non-essential spending like more global warming studies. If, on the other hand, they're not sure it's happening, then that's a good case for continuing to study.

(BTW "science" and "consensus" are mutually exclusive. Science is about being right, not about being popular.)

Follow the "manmade global warming"money
While Gore was sanctimoniously preaching the Manmade Global Warming gospel, he was positioning himself to profit from the exchange of carbon credits. Now there are 2000 lobbyists pushing cap and trade... not just "environmentalists", but those poor banks and brokerages we just bailed out. They want a piece of the lucretive exchange which will handle carbon credit transactions. You betcha it will pass. Even Pelosi is personally invested in Boone Pickens's, heavily subsidized wind farms. Of course it's a scam! It has nothing to do with science or the environment...it's money... OUR money.

Breathing Produces CO2
Why are we Americans laying down for this administration? We need to come together as fellow Americans and STRIKE. No work = no tax dollars being extorted.

Int'l Conference on Climate Change in NY
Have you noticed how little coverage the main stream media gave this event?
I hope the bloggers and talk radio pick up on this.
Notice also that Gore refuses to debate the subject. Until Gore debates a responsible, acclaimed, credible expert, why should we believe him?

how convenient
has anyone noticed the same people who preach that global warming is man made are the same people who will be in line to receive tax payer dollars to "fix" the problem. this will be the biggest leftist money grab since Obama put 600 billion as a down payment on medicaid reform.

to sum up
So scientists think global warming is happening, but some MBAs and politicians disagree. And public relations people think that the global warming supporters are not timing their protests well.

But then what do those scientists know about science. The real science is done by the fiction writers and MBAs.

The Globe
THE ONLY thing increasing regarding climate change and global warming are the legions of scientists that debunk this nonesense! Its really comical when they play Al Gores blather "I think the debate is over", when there has NEVER been ANY serious debate on this issue! WHY? because the left and thier peanut head media machine wont get into a debate they cant win.......

Lon
Don't forget that deep thinkers like Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly are telling Conservatives who to listen to (and worse, that they themselves understand the issue more than real scientists). If they were fair about the issue, then a 24-hr broadcast would contain 1% rebuttal from scientists who think AGW is NOT happening.

1% of 24 hrs is approximately 15 minutes. Isn't their 15 minutes up by now? I'm not including "political science" BS degrees, so we can safely stop at 1%.

I wonder how many of these same people believe in Noah's ark, end times, the world is 6,000 years old, "intelligent" design, Saddam attacked the US... Seems like a good correlation.

Bad science, consensus or no...
The global warming religionists have still not been able to replicate with their computer models actual weather/climate results that already happened! No matter what assumptions they feed it, they cannot do it. But they have 100 percent confidence that the models they use to predict the weather 50 and 100 years from now are accurate!?! And they feed extremely dubious assumptions to the models also.

If in fact the world's temperatures ARE rising (very questionable), why not do a cost-benefit analysis? It seems logical that a warmer planet will yield HIGHER crop yields, not lower. So perhaps we can wipe out hunger, no?

First premise: false
The first premise of the church of AGW is that the "average global temperature" is rising. How do they come up with that assumption? Well, there are approx. 2200 "weather stations" around the world that provide readings. 1500 of these are in the USA. That means only 700 weather stations report the other 95% of the world's weather. None of these 2200 stations are in the oceans of the world. Or in the atmosphere.

In the USA alone, where standards exist, many of the 1500 stations are in dubious to bad locations, i.e., adjacent to HVAC exhaust units, brick walls, middle of concrete or asphalt parking lots, trash burning receptacles, etc. Is it possible the "average global temperature" is not entirely accurate?

Premise 1A is that the current global temperature is the ideal. Who got to decide that? Why is 1995 better than 1930 or 1850 or even 1266?

A reasonable person can smell a scam a mile away.

Private Plane Owners
Only Nancy Pelosi and her friends should be allowed to fly in private planes or in her case private goverment planes.

The rest of you take Greyhound.

Eat that cake, you serfs.

Global Warming???
The entire hoopla about global warming really isn't about global warming. It is about getting research grant money. If you scare people they are more apt to give you money to find a solution to the problem. The more people you scare, the more money you can get. So scare them a lot! Of course, the people who say they have a solution (as Gore does) stand to make a lot of money too by selling you their solution. All they have to do is scare the government enough to get a law passed saying that you have to buy it from them.

Radical environmentalists "hearts"
(if ever in existence) were always cold and dead!

Measurements over time not comparable
As RealCommonSense accurately stated (10:46)
"In the USA alone, where standards exist, many of the 1500 stations are in dubious to bad locations, i.e., adjacent to HVAC exhaust units, brick walls, middle of concrete or asphalt parking lots, trash burning receptacles, etc. Is it possible the "average global temperature" is not entirely accurate?"

Another factor in the accuracy of "average global temperature" is the fact that after the fall of the Soviet Union hundreds of weather stations in Siberia were decommissioned.

What did the loss of these arctic data have on the calculation of "average global temperature?"

Scientific consensus, perhaps the greatest of oxymorons. If it's consensus, it's not science.
Pseudoscience in support of expansionist government policy is a huge threat to our prosperity and liberty. AGW is the eugenics of the 21st century.

GW
It’s like I always say; if this global warming keeps up, we’re all going to freeze to death.

Really.??.
.
The sun's activity has repeatedly been shown to be the controlling factor in heating and cooling surface temperatures of the earth. This is still the case today.

Any good earth scientist will tell you so in a minute as they regularly have been and are today. "We" can neither control nor should we control how or why this happens. When "Al" the Bore can control volcanoes and earthquakes then I "might" listen to this assassin of truth. Isn't he the same Al Bore who wrote during the 1990's that the earth was cooling when in fact it was already warming.

Sell his mansion and airplane and give it to some poor and wretched of this earth who really need his ill gotten goods starting with what his father stole.

Phooey and a pox on his kind of social engineers who wish to profiteer from the backs of the rest of us... If Al the Bore Peckerwood is so intent upon "greening" the rest of us then he should lead by a example.
His personal example stinks to high heaven.
It's do as I say, not as I do.
.

Cap & Trade "solves" global warming
After Cap & Trade passes don't be surprised if Al Gore and his Anthropogenic Global Warming minions don't take credit for the "subsequent" cooling trend that is already taking place. Liberals never fail especially when they own the MSM spewing their clap trap to a gullible public.

The Politics Behind Global Warming
What is dismaying is we cannot even agree on facts. Is Global warming real or not? The answer seems to be on your political afiliation rather than sound science.

Here is a fact. The majority of the world's Scientists accept global warming as real. The majority of Americans are ignorant of Science and global warming.

First example is Mr. Gainor arguing that having cold winters disproves global warming. Excuse me for bing so blunt. But that is just plain dumb. It shows his ignorance and how anybody with a pen can promote it.

So why the politics? Is global warming really a liberal conspiracy that includes a majority of world scientists?

Here is my take...Conservatives fear that if global warming is true, it gives license for the government to impose strict regulations on consumers and businesses. Anti-conservative principles will unfold and liberals will take political advantage to promote their agenda.

So, rather than accepting the facts and disagree in policy to fix it, Conservatives decided to lie to themselves and the rest of us and deny global warming is real.

This started with business like Exxon and others that financed scientific studies with the intention of disproving global warming. To create conflicting studies that put doubt in people's mind and give politicans political cover to protect business interests. "The facts aren't clear, we need more studies".

It is in busniess's interest for global warming not to be true in order to thwart additional government regulations. It has since manifested itself into a conservative political idealogy.

This is yet another example of how conservatives dumb down America by attacking science and facts to preserve their idealogy and/or beliefs.

It Is All A Scam
Let us be honest with each other. NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE is serious about preventing global warming from occuring. If there were serious about it, they would "force" everyone to reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases, to the point that they believe that global warming will not occur, regardless of the pain that would be involved.

stedes
Conservatives aren't denying that there has been a global warming trend, we just are conceited enough to think man is causing it. Climate has fluctuated long before man came on the scene with a carbon-footprint. Whether the climate heats up or cools down in then next 100 years is irrelevant to the question of what we should do about it. The question is whether we are causing it or not. The current theory is that rising levels of atmospheric CO2 result in higher temperatures. Except, of cource, that while CO2 levels have continued to rise over the last decade, temperatures have fallen. The point is that man is not anywhere near the primary cause for climate change, so we shouldn't be rationing CO2 like it was a "pollutant" instead of the airborne fertilizer for plants that helps create record harvests and feed people around the world. Lets cut out the strawman and debate the real question: how many people have to die from lack of energy for an unproven theory about global warming that is unexpectedly NOT happening like the global warming alarmists models predicted it would.

Guess what, it's not something is wrong with the climate, it's that something is wrong with the model. And without that model, there is no reason to be rationing energy.

More Useful Idiots
Answer these questions and satisfy these conditions before presuming to tell anyone that Global Warming is entirely man-made and must be dealt with immediately.

1. Why have the temperatures on Mars increased at the same rate as the Earth? (Martian SUVs?)

2. What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?

3. How can the global temperature be held in stasis? Will nature cooperate?

4. How many temperature readings and from what locations should those temperatures be taken to truly determine the average temperature of the Earth?

5. Has the Earth ever been colder or hotter on average than it is now?

6. Why have some supporters of AGW insisted that solar activity has no bearing on global warming?

I also wonder about the following:

On Windmills

What is the carbon footprint of a modern windmill? How much energy does it take to produce one? How much waste is produced when the windmill is retired after 20 years? How much energy will it take to maintain over its lifespan? How much energy will it take to recycle the windmill?

On Cap and Trade

How will people react when food prices skyrocket OR when there are food shortages due to price controls when increasing energy prices drive up the price of EVERYTHING!

On Energy Innovation

How can we experience any breakthroughs in energy production if our economy remains in a recession due to excessive taxes on energy use?

On Carbon Credits

Why does the whole Carbon Credit thing sound a lot like the buying indulgences during the Middle Ages?


Deconstructing stedes, part 1
"Here is a fact. The majority of the world's Scientists accept global warming as real."

Correct. But only about 28% of them in the area of climate science think that the warming is being mostly caused by humans, and that is the important part.

"Here is my take...Conservatives fear that if global warming is true, it gives license for the government to impose strict regulations on consumers and businesses. Anti-conservative principles will unfold and liberals will take political advantage to promote their agenda."

Again, correct. And seeing as how we have at least 100 years of history showing that kooky liberals will exploit every "disaster", perceived or real, to forward their anti-American, anti-constitutional history, only a moron could conclude those fears are unfounded.

"So, rather than accepting the facts and disagree in policy to fix it, Conservatives decided to lie to themselves and the rest of us and deny global warming is real."

Virtually no one thinks the world is not warmer now than it was 30 years ago (though only half-witted twits like yourself could deny that it is actually cooler now than it was 10 years ago...even Hansen and the rest of the GoreBull$h1t warming crowd has had to admit that). The only disagreements are on the cause of the warming and what ought to be done about it.

Deconstructing stedes, part 2
"This started with business like Exxon and others that financed scientific studies with the intention of disproving global warming."

Yes, yes, we know. Exxon/Mobile gave about $19 million over a 10 year period to groups and individuals who have come on the "skeptic" side of the debate. On the other hand, in 2007 alone, the US government funneled **$40 BILLION** into groups and individuals on the GW kookery side. And who is "bought and paid for" again?

"This is yet another example of how conservatives dumb down America by attacking science and facts to preserve their ideology and/or beliefs."

Coming from someone who likely thinks that just because frogs are included in the fossile record before humans, that means ipso facto humans sprung forth from frogs and thinks that, contrary to what every biologist and geneticist on Earth says, an embryo really is not a human being, I find that statement quite ironic.

The earth is warming a fact??
I would like to know on what basis one can assert (factually) that "Here is a fact. The majority of the world's Scientists accept global warming as real." I want the scientists who agree with this "fact" to show me their empirical data. If this data is based on the flawed "weather station" network then I ain't buying. Don't forget algore "proves" this by pointing out that volcanoes are erupting and hurricanes are stronger! Again, no empirical data. Just casual observance of a few weather (and non-weather) phenomena and lots of emotion. Why are they scaring our school children into believing that globalwarming is killing off the cute little polar bears when empirical data is consistent that the polar bear population is increasing, not decreasing? Why is EVERY AGW "denier" somehow linked to oil company funing when no one ever mentions their own government teat-sucking? I use my BS-detector and it tells me something is not right about this whole issue. Show me real data that can be examined and verified. Not pooh-pooh about "it is settled" and "consensus". When did the Scientific Method become irrelevant? Oh, please.

Deconstructing beowulfe
"Coming from someone who likely thinks that just because frogs are included in the fossile record before humans, that means ipso facto humans sprung forth from frogs and thinks that, contrary to what every biologist and geneticist on Earth says, an embryo really is not a human being"

I never said that? Please quote me. I do not believe that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you creating a straw man so you can knock me down? And why would you bring evolution/ID into the discussion?

"On the other hand, in 2007 alone, the US government funneled **$40 BILLION** into groups and individuals on the GW kookery side. And who is "bought and paid for" again"?

What is the "GW" kookery side?

Most of the scientists are university academics that apply for grants from federal agencies. I do not know if you are refering to these folks, but they are much more independent than an Exxon financed study.

But you seem to equate cold winters and lower temperatures than 10 years ago with global warming. One of the biggest mistakes scientists made was to call this climate change "global warming". "Climate Change" is a more accurate label.It confuses people as to what is really happening. Gloabl warming can actually bring in harsher and colder weather and change the climate of an area.

But it seems you accept warming but disagree on the casue. Well that is a big step forward for a conservative. But again, if the casue is humans, here comes more liberal regulations, and there goes your conservative idealogy.

Scientific method irrelevant?
"When did the Scientific Method become irrelevant?"

When scientists discovered that alarmism is an easy way to get the government to fork over billions of dollars to fund bogus research.

An amusing story:

I'm an avid reader of the "Odd Stories" category at Yahoo News. A few years ago, there was a story about how some people were alleging that penguins at the South Pole would fall over backwards and bump their little heads when they looked up at passing airplanes and helicopters. Penguin-lovers worldwide went nuts. "Those poor, poor penguins! We need to do SOMETHING!" A few months after that, there was a second story detailing how the UK spent something like $3 million on a scientific study to see if penguins really did fall over backwards when an airplane or helicopter passed. What a freakin' joke!

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the scientists concluded that no, penguins don't have a habit of falling over backwards when an airplane or helicopter passes.

But could you imagine if the study came to the opposite conclusion? Dopes like Hansen over at NASA would be demanding that the United States spend a few billion dollars on helmets for the penguins at the South Pole because everyone knows that if penguins all died of concussions, Earth would spin wildly out of orbit and we'd fall into the sun!

GLOBAL WARMING HOAX SOLUTION

I have a solution to the global warming hoax. And,I am convinced that it is really a hoax.

THE SOLUTION IS:

"TAKE TWO ICE CUBES AND CALL YOUR
PSYCIATRIST IN THE MORNING."

The need for a psyciatrist is obvious. The two ice cubes are just to remind you that the earth
seems to be in a cooling cycle which could lead to an ice age.

stedes
I was listening to the radio yesterday. The host was intervewing an author. The author, Christopher Horner-Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a book titled:Red Hot Lies. This man work as a leagle consular to GE,Enron, and like energy companys. He flat out said they wanted cap and trade, as it would flood Billions, yes billions, of dollars thier way. So you see big business want's this as badly as the sci. community. Thay are in it for the money as you would say. GE is the single biggest genarator builder in the world, and is one of the five biggest corp. in the world. Now tell me how big business is fighting this.
Kirk

The Politics Behind Global Warming ?
Stedes, You sound like an intelligent individual with a reasoned approach to your argument but where are you getting your “facts.”

“Here is a fact. The majority of the world's Scientists accept global warming as real.”
Really!

And your take that “Conservatives fear that if global warming is true, it gives license for the government to impose strict regulations on consumers and businesses.”
No, Stedes, my fear is that the government is going to implement a costly Cap & Trade policy that will devastate an already reeling U.S. economy and result in a totally insignificant reduction in the increase of CO2 emissions worldwide, for the foreseeable future.

“This started with business like Exxon and others that financed scientific studies with the intention of disproving global warming.”

No, Stedes, this started in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain. She financed a study to prove a controversial theory that CO2 emissions were causing global warming and thus harming the environment; proof REQUIRED to support Ms. Thatcher’s plan for Britain to reduce its reliance on a troublesome coal industry for energy production by going Nuclear. You can read about it here: http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/200 7/03/brit_doc_thatch.html
This article also references a British documentary, “The Great Global Warming Scandal” (the correct title is “The Great Global Warming Swindle”). I have a copy. You can get one too.

If you can get past your own prejudices on this issue you might find this documentary interesting and informative.

Deconstructing stedes...AGAIN part 1
"I never said that? Please quote me. I do not believe that. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Are you creating a straw man so you can knock me down? And why would you bring evolution/ID into the discussion?"

I never said you did say that. I said you likely think that, and I STILL think you do. Most science-hating nutballs like yourself think wacky things like that.

"What is the "GW" kookery side?"

Anyone who thinks that there is "consensus" that human activity is causing Earth to fall into the sun is a kook.

"Most of the scientists are university academics that apply for grants from federal agencies. I do not know if you are referring (sic) to these folks, but they are much more independent than an Exxon financed study."

I know, I know. Anyone who agrees with your kookery is "independent", and anyone who does not is "bought and paid for". The numbers don't lie, kiddo. $40 billion dollars worth of "independence" in 2007 alone doesn't lie.

Deconstructing stedes...AGAIN part 2
"One of the biggest mistakes scientists made was to call this climate change "global warming". "Climate Change" is a more accurate label.It (sic) confuses people as to what is really happening. Gloabl (sic) warming can actually bring in harsher and colder weather and change the climate of an area."

How convenient. The temperature goes up, GLOBAL WARMING! The temperature goes down, GLOBAL WARMING! The hurricae season is very harsh, GLOBAL WARMING! The hurricane season is very light, GLOBAL WARMING!

Riddle me this, kiddo: Is there ANY evidence that could EVER come out that would lead you to believe that the current "climate change" kookery is maybe a little off base? If God himself came out of Heaven and held a press conference detailing how he was just screwing with the global temperature for fun, and humans had nothing to do with it, would that change your mind?

"But it seems you accept warming but disagree on the cause. Well that is a big step forward for a conservative."

Um, no it isn't. You can't identify even a SINGLE conservative of note ON PLANET EARTH that would tell you that they think the jury is still out on whether the planet is warmer now than it was 30 years ago. In short, you are a freakin' liar when it comes to how you describe how conservatives think.

Personally, I think it is BEYOND stupid to say we should destroy the entire planet's economy based upon mostly debunked junk science. But hey, that's just my conservatism speaking.

stedes
As I read your posts, I detect a note a bit of arrogance. Answer this one queston for me, how can we change our climate. We can not control nature. To say that the sci. is beyond disput, is not true. There are many scientists out there who argee it is not true. This is not decided, nor is the debate over. As a post below asked, is warming bad for the earth, or what is our proper temp? Please don't think it's over, and no debate is possable. This just makes your crowd look arrogant.
Kirk

Kirk: interesting fact.
Here's an interesting fact that stedes is sure to not like:

Did you know that GE spends more money lobbying congress to impose more "global warming" restrictions than the top 5 oil companies spend on lobbying against such restrictions?

But remember, it's the anti-AGW crowd that is "bought and paid for"!

Yeah, right!

Beowulf
No I did not. I just heard about two segments on the Dennis P. show. It does not supprise me though. This reminds me of the way progressives have always worked. They rail against big business, but work with other big busineses to gain control over the people. The gov. gets a cut of the money, and all the power. The comp. gets the monopoly on sales.
Kirk

Do you realize what the argument is?
The current concentration of C02 in our atmosphere is approx. 440 parts per million (PPM). How much of that have we humans put there (vs nature itself)? And do you realize we are talking about FOUR ONE-HUNDREDTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the entire atmosphere? That's what's causing the supposed "warming"? And to call C02 pollution is pure demagoguery! We need C02 just to breathe! How about water vapor? That's H20! That has a much larger concentration in the atmosphere - in fact it is the largest concentration of all "greenhouse" gases! So when do we declare water vapor (H20) pollution also?

Furthermore, since there has been no rise in temperatures since 1998, and we have been pumping exponentially more C02 into the atmosphere (especially China and India), how does the Pope of AGW explain that?

And, if be some miracle of happenstance we were able to demonstrably reduce C02 emissions from man, a single Mt St Helens eruption would wipe it all out in an instance. All of it.

Man can't compete with nature, and it ain't our fault. It just is.

A few corrections:
"We need C02 just to breathe!"

This isn't true. CO2 is toxic to humans.

Plants, however, need CO2.

"And, if be some miracle of happenstance we were able to demonstrably reduce C02 emissions from man, a single Mt St Helens eruption would wipe it all out in an instance. All of it."

This is also untrue. The US Geological Service claims that volcanos account for less than 1% of CO2 emmissions. However, if I'm not mistaken, volcanos out-produce humans in methane and nitrous oxide emitting.

The AMS Goes Insane
The American Meteorological Society just awarded its highest honor, the Rossby Research Medal, to a person with no training in meteorology, the AGW loon James Hansen.

Among Hansen’s many contributions to my former field, was his recent announcement that October of 2008 was the warmest October on record. Of course the majority of the so-called “scientific community” accepted Hansen’s pronouncement like all of his others from on high, uncritically. A couple of true scientists began looking into Hansen’s spurious claim and discovered that Hansen had used Russian data from September.

When confronted, Hansen and his fawning acolytes at GISS claimed it to be an innocent mistake, nothing at all to be upset about.

In the past, such a blunder would have made any award from any meteorological group impossible. Now, it doesn’t matter what sleight of hand Hansen engages in, he remains the darling of the press, the Obama administration, Gore, a large swath of the scientific community, and now, even the American Meteorological Society.

I recommend that everyone read Professor Bill Gray’s now famous letter to the AMS titled, “On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society.” Professor Gray is the Colorado State meteorologist who pioneered long-range tropical forecasting. In other words very few people in the world, if any at all, know more than him about hurricanes/typhoons.

More and more, Science is becoming the handmaiden of leftist ideology.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_Ame rican_Meteorological_Society.pdf

real com. sense
Thank you, you said it beter then I could. I live buy the idea that if it can't pass the com. sense smell test it has to be wrong, no pun intended.
Kirk

Larger Issue
The global warming debate seems very useless. The people who profit from certain ideology will not stop until they are forced. Those people currently have a lot of money which in a democratic society like America gives you the power to make the rules. Additionally, people act in their own self interest. Those who want money (from either side) will get paid to say what suites that sides point of view. Because our effect on global warming is debatable (and potentially unknowable) we will never come to an agreement. Both sides have too much money to lose and so they will promote their agenda until their existence is threatened.

Maybe global warming is true maybe it isn't. Maybe it will cause the extinction of human beings and maybe it won't. The larger issue for seems to be that there are 6 billion (and change) of us sharing this planet and eventually something we do is going to cause major damage to our environment. We create massive amounts of waste of all kinds and additionally create things (chemicals, weapons, disease) that could end our existence.

Combine that with our nature as human beings (violent, greedy, short-sided, religiously fanatical) and it is seems it will only be a matter of time before something like global warming cause us to significantly alter the way we live.

Common sense?
Did someone mention common sense here? When have the liberals(progressives,ha) ever shown a lick of common sense? They live their lives on feelings only not true cognitive thinking. Truth be told, Al Gore should be brought up on charges of fraud and deceit and made to pay back the millions of dollars he has made selling carbon credits. Who in the heck made up carbon credits anyway? That person should be charged with fraud and deceit also. A long prison term would not be enough to pay back society for what this man has done to our country.

k
Please read UN stats on the population. If you took all the people in the world, and put them in Texas. You would get the population density of New York city. And the only relgiously fanatical people on this seems to be the left, weather they are relgious or not.
Kirk

Algore, why are my donuts frozen?
Global warming is a giant hoax. Algore is a giant liar.

Dear Kirk
Not in MY state, you don't! LOL

New coat, same old reds
The global warming hoaxers are watermelons i.e. green on the outside, red on the inside.

Unvarnished communism (socialism in a hurry) simply doesn't sell well enough even to an electorate dumbed down by leftist indoctrination through public education and the MSM. The stench of a hundred million death toll and grim oppression lingers somewhere in collective memory.

So now the same old statist redistributionist ideas have been given a slick coat of green and dressed up with pictures of cuddly polar bears and people have been buying it big time, including allowing indoctrination of their children from toddlerhood in junk science and anti-capitalist claptrap.

The proof that enviro-nuts are actually just statist control freaks is their lack of concern for how many people they have to kill now to "save" hypothetical people generations away. As one example, greenies still venerate Rachel Carson, the woman who demonized DDT by claiming that thinning bird eggshells heralded doom for humankind. The junk science she kick started (a warm-up for the global warming scam) caused millions of unnecessary malaria deaths in Africa, mostly children. It took decades to reverse leftist propagated ignorance and stop this needless genocide of blacks by allowing them to use the DDT westerners had used to eradicate malaria and save themselves.

The Left kills people, then walks away and starts cooking up its next scam. (BTW the global warming hoax now interfering with Africans' burning coal to cook food and warm their huts will kill them disproportionately again especially as global cooling sets in). With "saviors" like these, who needs enemies?

So why are the politicians so set on it
Why are the politicians so set on global warming (sorry) global climate change? (money)

What proof will we get that says the carbon offset a company buys isn't paying for the landscaping of a property investment by some politician?


Like I said before--
Sure there's "Climate Change"..Always has been- always will be!!
All the Knuckle Polishing & Wailing aside: Even if we could DEFINE an actual cause there's very likely NOTHING of consequence to be done about it!! ESPECIALLY these idiots in Wash D&C-They're not smart enough to FORECAST WX, much less REMEDY the problem..Think I'll have those 2 ice cubes but skip the shrink!! CHEERS

global warming
Global warming ended the ice age period.
Money is the motive behind all this.
Take away the coal and our gas and oil reserves
only those with money and carbon credits can have heat, will the tax payers have to pay for Obama to keep his office now and after you bet plu secret service for 40 years, better set up a trust fund. but I digress. history lesson number 2 for all you youngsters. If you wanted heat when I was young, you went outside, dot some coal and wood from the coal shed, you put the hunks of coal and the wood and some paper in the stove and you threw in a lit match. Heat
in minutes, the coal was straight out of the ground, no filters, no EPA, no hasmet mask, no air purifers, and guess what all my releatives lived to be 90 or more. So how much safer can the stuff be today.And any idot who votes to tax cow gas is too stupid to hold elective office let alone vote. When you give up self sufficency you give up freedom and we are letting them take it away from us each day .
now hear this there is no difference between a liberal democrat and a globalization republican.

an inconvienient name
So now it's climate change?? I thought it was "global warming" I guess they couldn't convince enough people that the earth "had a tempurature" as al gore said in the movie, so now they change the name so they don't have to be specific on exactly whats going on. If the climate starts to chill they can still call it "climate change" and still blame it on mankind.... Incredible

Note to Cons
The earth is warming (no scientist is saying otherwise, just you guys).

Man is part of the reason (no scientist is saying otherwise, just you guys).

I don't know how so many people can be duped with crap about number of stations and locations. Did you tell NASA about your incredible discoveries? Did you think you found something so simple they may have missed? You can't get temperature readings unless there is a 1950s mercury thermometer sitting on every square mile of the earth while dog sleds and rafts collect data. Really? REALLY????

Did you ALL skip science and logic classes? This is getting to be a bit absurd.

Note to Cons -- the Earth is warming. Man is part of the cause. Stick to the only arguments worth debating: How much is man contributing and what should we do to correct the problem?

inthemajority
Many Scientists say that the earth is cooling and that it has been cooling for at least ten years. Your “no scientist is saying otherwise” is complete nonsense. Even if the earth were warming, so what. The point is not whether the earth is warming or cooling, both of which it has done since time immemorial, all on its own.

The only issue at hand is whether or not human emitted CO2 can effect climate change.

Even the original United Nation’s IPCC report, the true suppressed report that was submitted by the participating scientists, stated unequivocally that not one single study to date proves that man affects climate.

Some of the great meteorologists of the world, such as Frederick Seitz and Bill Gray, who are just two of many, certainly think your statement is utter nonsense.

Quite recently, thousands of scientists signed a petition stating the same.

My best friend, who is one of the top tropical forecasters in the world, thinks that people like you are flat-earth-centric wingnuts.

Your post is shameless leftist propaganda.

The Leipzig Declaration
Stated in part,

“More to the point, we consider the scientific basis of the 1992 Global Climate Treaty to be flawed and its goal to be unrealistic. The policies to implement the Treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. We believe that the dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the existing climate record. These predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on"

http://sovereignty.net/p/clim/leipzig97.htm

A partial list of the Scientists that signed the Leipzig Declaration, who represent a broad array of scientific disciplines, can be found at:

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html

Any person, who in reference to AGW states that all scientists agree, is a liar.

WAY Down South
Your post is shameless righty-tighty propaganda.

So, since it cools at night, the earth is cooling? No wait, because it gets colder in the winter months... no, the south gets warmer. OK, here's some help, it was cold in Podunk IL this winter... so...

Time scale is important. All of the crap I still hear is based on Cons looking at a few years (mostly in the US mind you) and they do not even bother with the past 100 years. They do not understand natural shifts vs unnatural. They do not understand the Earth vs the US (and the 48 contiguous). They CONSTANTLY get those mixed up, and still cannot see that the Earth is warming.

So according to you and your scientists, the fact that the past decade has most of the records (nine I believe) means ______. The fact that the past two decades have about 18 of the warmest years means _____. OF COURSE to a Con that means the Earth is cooling! The fact that La Niña cools the Earth means _____.

Cycles within cycles. You have to start arguing the right cycles and see what is out of whack.

If you want to wait 5,000 years, then yes the earth is cooling. So how does one explain the current warming? Looks like the longer-term cooling trend is being ousted by the shorter-term warming.

You're probably one of those people who argue (like most Cons) that the ozone levels oscillate, therefor the increase (and subsequent decrease) are natural occurrences. If you knew anything about oscillations within oscillations you would not be arguing like this.

inthemajority
As I already pointed out in my previous post, which you either didn’t read carefully or didn’t understand, this debate is not about whether the earth is currently cooling or warming. Therefore, there is no point arguing colder or warmer.

The central question at the heart of the debate is once again,

Is the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by humanity affecting climate-change?

Nothing in your 12:06 reply even remotely addresses this question.

You earlier stated,

“The earth is warming . . . Man is part of the reason (no scientist is saying otherwise, just you guys).”

Even if the earth is currently warming, many scientists are either doubtful that man is a part of the cause or they reject the notion outright. Many have gone on the record with their signatures. I have already provided you and the other posters with clear evidence of this.

You lied and I called you on it.

You should be more prudent about making such blanket statements. It makes it so much easier to dismiss you out of hand.

The Great Carbon Scam
Bend over California--you are getting screwed again, according to the Pasadena Star:

"This April, a mandate from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) called the Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program (EVRP) will go into effect. The idea behind the program is to get next-generation clean nozzles and equipment installed at fuel pumps in the state in order to control emissions. Sounds like a good thing, right? The environment wins because ground-level ozone should be reduced and people win, too."

"What's the problem? These new cleaner gas stations aren't cheap ($85,000 a nozzle), and "dozens, and potentially hundreds" of gas stations in California might close down instead to upgrade....CARB responds by saying that gas prices will go up by about 0.68 cents a gallon to cover the cost of upgrading."

Item of note: The gas station closest to my home, a relatively new 76 Station, just closed down.

Add this to all the other tax increases coming down the pipe, California is going to exceed Michigan as the nation's basket case. Just think about it while you wait in line for gas.


Too far south
"Is the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by humanity affecting climate-change?"

Yes. This is a science experiment that is typically done in HS, but if you missed that it is also frequently performed in college. Yes.

"Even if the earth is currently warming, many scientists are either doubtful that man is a part of the cause or they reject the notion outright. Many have gone on the record with their signatures. I have already provided you and the other posters with clear evidence of this."

Man IS part of the reason. How absurd you sound at this point. You mean to tell me that you think there is a scientist who thinks otherwise? Even if some scientists this man is a small part, they would never deny that we are part.

BTW, "many scientists" in the mind of the Con is really about 1%. Yes, about 1% think we are changing the environment, but not to a degree worth worrying about. 1% is many to you, so be it. But that 1% do not deny that man is part of this equation.

You should be more prudent about such blanket statements. You sound like a MS student trying to tie up his paper for the science fair. Good luck.

For anyone still doubting

That there is a scientific consensus on manmade global warming, simply check here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49

to see all the worldwide scientific organizations that support it. Your lists of oddballs and cranks simply cannot compete, either here or in the literature. Far from being debnked, the AGW hypothesis is stronger than ever, ignorant "consensus isn't science" comments from fiction writers notwithstanding.

Of course, you can always claim that somehow, a bunch of bloggers, political writers, and general shmoes know more about science than scientists, or that there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide The Truth. It will only make you look kookier than you already do.

J-10 Needs to Learn How Science Works
J-10 said: "consenus= opinion based on general agreement. The operative word here is 'opinion', that's not science dude."

That's not scientific consensus, "dude". A scientific consensus is not a vote, nor is it mere opinion. It is the consistent conclusion from the literally thousands of papers published in the peer-reviewed literature (you know, those places the denialists never go). Scientists don't just sit around chitchatting about their views as you do (there's projection for you). They actually go collect data. And the data conclusively shows a human element to global warming. That you are ignorant of this data changes nothing.

J-10 said: "It might or might not be a conspiracy, but I know when I'm being hussled."

No, you don't. This is the problem. You guys think your gut feelings count more than actual science. You don't have a magic hussle detector that the rest of us lack. Why do you think the peer review system exists in the first place, and why replication of data is so important in science? Scientists are acutely aware of the human tendency to deceive ourselves. You who sit in judgement of science while remaining safely outside that system of scrutiny (like all your beloved dissenters) pretend that doesn't apply to you. "Arrogant" is too mild a term for you, who preach the imperfection of everyone but yourself.
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.