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
Thursday, January 25, 2007
David Strom :: Townhall.com Columnist
Are You Afraid Yet?
by David Strom
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Are you afraid? Very afraid?

Well, if you aren’t, you should be. And if you are, you aren’t scared enough.

In just over a week, we are about to be treated to yet another Cassandra-style warning about the “fate of the earth,” this time from the International Panel on Climate Change.

It has become part of the background noise in our daily lives: the constant refrain that the world is rushing headlong into certain doom.

A doom, that is, that you will suffer unless you hand control of the economy and your daily lives over to the very elite that is warning of the impending disaster: the media, the left-leaning political class, and academics. As long as we surrender to the tender mercies of their magnanimity and good will, all might yet be well with the world.

When I was growing up, the crisis was the population bomb. The exponential growth in human population was inevitably leading us all into a bleak future of death, disease, and mass starvation. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." wrote Paul Ehrlich.

Of course the population bomb blew up in Ehrlich’s face, and now most major countries in the developed world are faced with the economic problem of population decline and increasing obesity, not mass starvation.

But being wrong hasn’t stopped the doomsayers. There is always something to be very afraid of. In the 70’s it was Global Cooling, “limits to growth,” the energy crisis, and the yellow peril of Japanese economic expansion; in the 80’s it was nuclear power, nuclear war, nuclear winter, Alar on our apples, and the conversion of the middle-class into a vast cadre of homeless people; in the 90’s we were introduced to global warming, genetically modified foods invading nature, and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” These days worries center on global climate change, the bird flu, and peak oil.

The evidence for anthropogenic climate change (man-made global warming to you and me) is said to be “overwhelming” and “irrefutable” in the copious amount of pre-publication press the new IPCC report is garnering.

Well, count me among the skeptical few.

It’s not that I know for certain that the IPCC is selling snake oil this time, because I don’t. In fact, I have no doubt that a number of brilliant scientists without a particular axe to grind are concerned about possible human-induced global climate change, and have been involved in researching the issue.

It’s just that the IPCC’s existence and funding are wholly dependent upon there being a “crisis,” and they have established a terrible track record in their previous 3 reports that should make all of us especially skeptical. In their last report they prominently featured the compelling “hockey stick” graph of global temperature over time. The graph showed a stable global climate for the past 1000 years, until men started to really muck it up in the 20th Century.

It made for a compelling visual—much as Paul Ehrlich’s demonstration that we were headed to certain doom in the 70’s and 80’s—but it was inconveniently and ridiculously wrong. The centerpiece of the 3rd IPCC report, it is now as thoroughly discredited as Ehrlich’s predictions of mass starvation. What makes this particular case of bad science was not only how obviously wrong it was (did no climate scientists notice the lack of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age in the graph?), but how prominently promoted it was as “proof” of human-induced climate change.

That certainly doesn’t mean that the current IPCC report will be as flawed, but it certainly opens up room for more than a little doubt about whether the proof presented should “shock the world” into action, as the Chairman hopes.

The common denominator of all these recent predictions of doom is that we are told that there is only one way to prevent certain disaster: hand over our individual freedoms and control of the economy to a political elite. In the 60’s and 70’s Ehrlich suggested compulsory population control (a suggestion taken up by China), luxury taxes on cribs and products aimed at children, and the establishment of a government bureaucracy called the Federal Bureau of Population and Environment.

More recently we have seen proposals for carbon taxes, subsidies to favored technologies such as “alternative fuels,” stepped up urban planning to promote population density, forced recycling and greater and greater government control of the economy through taxes and subsidies in general. The content of the predictions themselves is irrelevant, the general solution is always the same: hand control of politics and the economy over to an elite who know what is good for us, and they will save you from yourselves.

In other words, hand money, power and fame to the few and they will reward you with your lives. Pretty much the same deal that feudal lords gave their serfs.

The prophesies of doom and gloom are just another version of a political and intellectual elite grasping for power. And of that, I would say, you should be very afraid.

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

David Strom is the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. He hosts a weekly radio show on AM-1280 "The Patriot" in Minneapolis-St. Paul, available on podcast at Townhall.com.

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

"Experts" can't predict the weather
...four days from now. What makes anyone consider their prophecies for forty years from now any more accurate?

Let the free market reign
My proposal: Let these people tell their tales of global destruction and then let them try to market the necessary "products" to a properly terrorized,er,um,informed public and let THEM choose how they change their way of living for the sake of "Mother Earth".

In the meantime though -Provided for your dining and dancing(in a free/safe America)pleasure,here is a link that may be a step towards your more immediate safety & security:


http://truthlaidbear.com/thenrscpledge/

Bring back nuclear winter
With all these third rate powers acquiring nukes or at least trying to, liberals don't seem concerned. Just a few years ago they were screaming, "nuclear winter." Now they are worrying abut global warming. This is a natural process the earth goes through every century or so and then cools off again. The root cause is not from Americans driving around in Hummers. 98% of it is caused by water vapor.

Need proof? A thousand years ago the Vikings grew vegetables in Greenland and were frozen out a hundred years later. Sorry liberals - you need a new cause.

Wow!
We have 2 climate change experts posting. One an expert on long-term prediction (although a bit of a worry that he confuses weather and climate), the other on atmospheric chemistry. 98% good ol' H2O. Impressive statistics!

I'm so relieved...

So I can get back to business as usual. Hey - if it gets too hot we can just nuke those 3rd rate powers - just like turning on the old air conditioner switch.

By the way, I wonder what Du-Pont et al. are doing. They seem to be going along with this arrant nonsense. Why don't they just get back to looking after their bottom line, that's what I say.

And what about those so-called scientists with their blatant self-serving propaganda. Bunch of godless socialist twits. The Bush administration should never have cheaped out on them - they've defected to the dark side - traitors!

climate change...
It's a seasonable minus 7 degrees outdoors as I right this.

I say it's oat bran
and I say to hell with it. Every day something that was trumpeted as essential is abruptly switched to being fatal. I just ignore it all, as experience has proved that not more than 1% of any of it is even worth remembering and the rest is just noise.

I have saved the "special editions" Forbes Magazine puts out at the beginning of each decade, in which they predict what will occur in the coming 10 years, and now and then I pick one up at random and read through it just to remind me that all prediction is simply an assumption that what is happening today will continue to happen tomorrow only more so. Forbes' predictions for the 1980s are especially hilarious, predicated as they were upon the disastrous effects of the Carter Administration being continued by Mr. Reagan. Within two years it was Morning in America and Forbes' predictions had hit the dustbin of history where it reposes with the hysterical belief that if only we added oat bran to everything we'd be immortal.

As someone who has so far gone through six completely new software systems and who has realized that a new form of data storage lasts only long enough for me to pay to have everything moved from a system I can't use today to one I won't be able to use tomorrow, I understand that the one thing we cannot predict is the future. As the old saying goes, they also surf who only stand on waves. You'll only survive by getting on top of the wave and riding it where it goes, not by trying to figure out where it's going or stopping it from going there. So forget it.

To thickasabrick
Most of those so-called scientists are not climate oriented. And yes you are correct, they are a bunch of self-serving socialist twits. I'm glad you agree.

So, what do we do, really?
Mr. Strom, good article.

OK, so what can we all do about it? The democrats just got back into power by telling us a lot of lies about the economy, the war, and yes, global warming. And it worked.

The problem here is that I'm not a scientist. Many scientists are concerned, so I guess I should listen on some level. What gets missed in the media is the number of good scientists who disagree with the "common consensus" on global warming. Those qualified individuals somehow never get the microphone.

The media is happy to add a good spin to whatever the intellectual elite want no matter what they say. The media is willing criticize conservatives no matter what they say. I'm afaid - I'm very afraid, but not of global warming. I'm afraid of the left and its willing accomplice, the media.

Again, so what are we going to do about it?

Socialism,
… in its myriad forms, is the consolidation of resources, wealth and power in the hands of a few. If we let this “frog boil,” will we, eventually, be herded into population centers, have our movements restricted and regulated and be told how often and at what time of day we may bathe? Once upon a time, that was the drill in the USSR.

More elitist progressive propaganda.
This isn't about "global warming" is it? Really?

The progressive power brokers have struck a deal with the "doom and gloom" crowd once again and enlisted scientists from all over who will support their idiot technology.
Another chink in the armor of commom sense.

No, this is about power and money. It's about pushing the progressive agenda, aka; Socialism.

But hec, maybe it's about AlGore receiving not one but two nominations from the Academy of Hollywierdos.
That way they can say "Well see? We knew AlGore was a genius all along and he even invented the internet, didn't he".

Then again maybe the root cause of "global warming" is all the bovine flatulence recently reported by some study group at the U.N.
And what about all the other sources of flatulence? Isn't that additive?

And didn't you know that the earth is really flat?

Yup. And I can walk on water as long as it's frozen.........

I am afraid
that Bush will roll over on this and give the Demos what they want in some misguiding attempt to get support for Iraq.

State of fear
Micheal Chrichton's novel "State Of Fear" is a must read for all these doom and gloomers. Though it is fiction it is filled with references and charts that disclaim much of "man induced" global warming. Facts that at times during a cooling period, there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. An example of the atmosphere in terms of a football field and that CO2 is about the equivalent of the goal line and that man 's output is but a tiny fraction of that.
The earth was once much warmer than today from around 900 - 1300 when parts of Greenland, that are snow and ice covered, were livable and had an agriculture until it got cooler ( http://www.explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm ).
And guess what, we still have polar bears and England and Florida were not flooded.
SEA ICE??? If that is ice that is in the sea, consider this.... When you put an ice cube in a glass, the water level rises. When the ice cube melts, the water level stays the same. Glaciers melting??? Where did the great lakes come from? California once sported glaciers.
Another critical question is - What is the earth's temperature SUPPOSED to be? What we need is a major volcano erupting (hopefully an isolated one) and we will cool right down. Heck, global warming (as a natural cyle) may offset the coming of the next mini ice age.

a repeat point

All it will take to cure the talk of global warming is one big volcano blowing up.
When Krakatoa blew up in the 19th century, weather patterns were changed for several years. (cold summers, bitter winters) but eventually the ash settled out of the atmosphere.


Yess!
More global warming denial. Scientists say Co2 is a problem, but why trust a scientist when I have Limbaugh to guide me?

These are the scientists who design computers, invent medicines, send rockets to Mars, split the atom, etc. You trust them for all this, yet turn on them when they say something that effects your sacred right to cheap gas.

The problem with most people
is that they don't understand the scientific process. They think that scientists are non partisan guys just sitting around and one day the data tells them the results and it is incontrivertable.

The scientific process starts with a hypothesis that "the earth is getting warmer" and they go from there in order to prove or disprove it. And if they are even slightly biased, guess what their findings are?

Scientists are not infallible. That really is the beauty of science, in that things are constantly changing and being developed. So for us today to state unequivicably that what we have found today is the ultimate truth is arrogance to the nth degree. But wait, isn't that the definition of liberalism???

What would Gore have done had he
lived in the years just befoe the Ice Age?

Of course, when the Democrats run the Ship of State onto the Rocks, they will immediately blame the Rocks.

Nonsense!
Many people are buying into this nonsense.

I was at a family gathering a couple of weeks ago and one of my wife's cousins mentioned that she saw Gore's film. She touted it as absolute fact and mentioned that we should all see it.

It happened to be a warm day in January and we were sitting on the deck where I heard "Global Warming" mentioned a few times by other attendees of the gathering.

I have come to the realization that most people are sheep who take everything they hear on TV at face value.

Scary!


liberalgoodman
What is wrong with cheap gas?

Do you own a car?

To liberalgoodman
Hey LGM, I'm a scientist. Let me offer you a postulate. When you split a U-235 atom on the average you get 200 Mev of energy. When you split a liberal politician you get 200 cubic feet of BS. The problem is that the BS is so toxic you can’t even use it for fertilizer.

liberalgoodman
It's 15 degrees outside right now.

Can I get a little global warming?

BTW, the WSJ has ripped Al for years on G.W.

Check my blog:

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/1597d6c0-5118-43ae-9af5-56af44c65d0f

for an article on how Al Bore dodged an interview with noted and LEARNED G.W. skeptic Bjorn Lomborg.

Bjorn himself debunks G.W. here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002949

Lastly, what ever happened to that Ice Age that Newsweek, Time, and various other MSM outlets were touting in the 70's, that was gonna hit around 2000? Could they have been WRONG or were they merely lying to sell issues?

G.W., just another socialist tactic to kill America's raging economy.

Why?
Why do Democrats and liberals hate this country?

Vic
POST A SPEW ALERT D*MMIT!

Now I've gotta wipe up a coffee spray!

Splitting a lib politician...

FLMAO!

Lydia
I'm with you sister!

Sorry GunnyG
I'll post next time.

Reality on the Prairie
There was a "reality show" up here in Canada that put a bunch of modern back-to-the-landers on the Prairies with only those implements and articles that the people of the early 1800s would have had, and filmed them to see how they'd survive. I only watched a few of the episodes, but I recall after about three days the women were dirty, dishevelled, exhausted and hysterical about the fifteen hour days of unending sheer physical drudgery their lives had become.

I say we put up a colony in Manitoba (because nobody is using most of it) for a year and get the Hollyweirds (male and female, with all their children) and the wives and kids of liberal politicians, including Madame Hillary, to contract to stay there with only those implements their pioneer forebears had and see what they manage to do in the way of a "sustainable lifestyle." Put it on Pay Per View and use the money toward retiring the National Debt. Personally I think it would be a hit.

Buck
Buck writes:

Q. "What would Gore have done had he
lived in the years just before the Ice Age?"

A. He'd have found a knuckledragging Conservative who had NO PROBLEM killing critters for food, clothing, and cutting down trees for burning and shelter, and moved in like ALL liberals do.

Check my article on the evolution of liberal men into women during the prehistoric era. Ugly but true.

http://noliberalspin.townhall.com/g/04b80b88-b65b-4707-a9a0-5465d7c80ad0

Gunny G.
I read your article from the link.

You are the best!

Keep up the good work!

You've got it, thickasabrick!
You are right on! Check it out:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110009578

So how'd you know?

Fledermaus
Thanks. Just trying to keep the record straight on those lib girlie-men.

Your posts are hitting home as well!

A little liberal angst this AM!

Politically Correct Global Warming
If there is really a consensus regarding the cause(s) of global warming, Why do Al Gore and other politicians keep complaining about, and discrediting the dissenters? Don't forget the story of Galileo Galilei.

Gore says there's a vested interest in climatological studies funded by big oil companies. Couldn't you say the same thing about studies funded by big government?

The science of global warming has been politicized. Two senior senators, Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, are pressuring Exxon Mobile Corp. to stop funding scientists who question the conventional liberal wisdom on global warming. Doesn't that violate the first amendment for free speech? Not to mention - it's bad science..

It's just a game of percentages: A recent UN report says that that greenhouse gases produced by cows is 18% of total as opposed to the 6% produced by American cars. Does that mean we no longer need to worry so much about driving our SUVs?

Here's the kicker: These percentage calculations exclude naturally occurring water vapor. Water vapor is practically 100% of natural origin and constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, leaving only 5% for CO2 and other natural and man made emissions. Many media reported "facts and figures" regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately?) overstating human impacts by as much as 20-fold.

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

According to these dynamics, the biggest long term problem is the reduced salinity of the sea and it's effect on the thermohaline circulation: e.g., stalling of the gulf stream resulting in another ice age.

OR:

We could be hit by an asteroid!

And speaking of space: The sun is getting hotter and the Martian polar ice caps are melting.

With so many variables and unknowns, the exact cause and long term outcome are too uncertain to predict. Only one thing is certain: In the "long term" we are ALL dead.

liberalgoodman, you're brilliant, too
You're right, too, liberalgoodman. Those idiot scientists of the '70's who foresaw global cooling have been replaced by incredibly intelligent, all-knowing scientists who foresee global warming.

Take notice, now, that they've changed the term to "global climate change," just so they don't have to keep saying "weather anomaly caused by global warming" every time there's a cold snap somewhere.

It's in Whose hands??
Wasn't it just a couple weeks ago the east coast was so worried about global warming, with its record-breaking heat wave? Look at it now-- "bitter cold northeast" touts the online weather channel.

Look at the record snows in Colorado.

This year has been a bizarre winter across this country-- can't say for the world. But we're a definite part of this world, or should I say "globe". And I just see weird weather. Winters may be somewhat warmer over the past several years. But where are those who will look at historic trends? We've only been keeping the records we have for a relatively short time. But, as has been noted in many of these posts, we don't need to know accurate temperatures from the past several hundred years or more to be able to simply look at overall climate trends.

I recall quite clearly the global cooling threat of the 70s. And I'm a winter lover, so I was actually looking forward to it. It doesn't fit any more into the current agenda, though. This warming trend clearly does.

I just love what I recently read:

"God created this beautiful world on which we dwell. I believe that he wants us to 'clean up our rooms' (don't pollute, etc.). I just don't believe that he gave us the thermostat." -Paul R. Stone, President Accelerated Achievement LLC



Hey guys, GIGO applies!
The 'forecasts' of Global Doom are based on COMPUTER MODELS! They are only as good as the data that is used, and Mann's Hockey Stick is based on highly selective data. Several others have tried to duplicate the data using other data sets and guess what? No hockey stick...The model is flawed and does not stand up to honeset peer review. The types of actions that proponents of climate change will use to silence their critics remind me of the Gestapo and KGB at their worst.

As to Big Corps jumping on the 'GW' bandwagon, the eco-nits are using the same tactics as Jesse Jackson's 'rainbow' coalition. Threaten them with lawsuits for multi-billions in damage and you'll get 'em to do what you want as its easier and cheaper.

I agree with those who suggest that those who are pushing this 'back to nature' cr@p need to do it themselves.

They wouldn't last 6 months.

I am afraid.
We, the people, have lost control of our government. People vote based on 10 second sound bites or snappy phrases. They also vote based on party loyalty. Americans are flooded with misinformation and fear by everyone. This is intended to keep us under control. Keep a person confused and disoriented and you can 'guide' them for their own good.

Someguy asked, 'so what are we going to do about it?' The pessimist in me says we will do nothing different. Because to do something different would mean we might have to abandon some of our own pet ideas or allegiances. Stop focusing on party loyalty and focus on country loyalty. End political tyranny by ending incumbency. Stop electing the same people and expecting them to change what they are doing.

Are Americans still a strong people, who will sacrifice for the benefit of the next generations? Or are we so hardened in our own self interest to do nothing and allow our country and our children to suffer? Only time will tell.


My Glaciers
I'm sitting in my study in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. A number of years ago, right on this very spot, resided a one mile thick glacier.

It's gone now. All that is left is the escarpment and a few shallow lakes that it had gouged out on its' path south.

Hey Dude--Where'd my glacier go? What could have possible caused it to melt away? There were no Hummers back then -- might have been a Studebaker or two but, how much harm could a Studebaker do?

For those of you who would demonize skeptics of man made causes of global warming consider the following:

It is important to note that the so-called “Skeptics” include Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard; Claude Allegre, one of the most decorated French geophysicists; Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT; Dr. Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia: Dr. Fred Singer; Professor Bob Carter, geologist at James Cook University, Australia; 85 scientists and climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzeg Declaration which called drastic climate controls “ill-advised, lacking credible support from the underlying science; 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in climate study who signed a petition issued by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying there is no evidence green house gasses cause global warming; and the 4,000 scientists and leaders from around the world, including 70 Nobel Prize winners, who signed the Heidelberg Appeal calling greenhouse global warming theories “highly uncertainly scientific theories.”

Bovine Flatulance
I love that line, Solo.

Anyhoo, do you think if Al Gore doesn't win an Oscar for his documentary "A Convenient and Profitable Lie", that he may ask for a recount?

Would democrats accuse Leonardo Di caprio of stealing the win?


Let's let Ehrlich speak
Q: As you know, many of the predictions you made in The Population Bomb didn't come true. Have you suffered any criticism or embarrassment because of this? -- Charles Sommers, Madison, Wis.


Ehrlich: Some things I predicted have not come to pass. For instance, starvation has been less extensive than I (or rather the agriculturalists I consulted) expected. But it's still horrific, with some 600 million people very hungry and billions under- or malnourished. What I predicted about disease and climate change was essentially right on. And of course the movement the "bomb" helped to fuel softened some of the impacts. Many people said not to worry -- that marvelous technological fixes would make it possible to take wonderful care of even 5 billion people. We now have 6.3 -- you judge how well technology is doing. Bottom line: substantial criticism, little embarrassment.


Q: Were your predictions in The Population Bomb right? If not, what was wrong with the claims? Was it a matter of degree and emphasis, or serious basic flaws? -- Richard Groshong, South Miami, Fla.


Erlich: Anne and I have always followed U.N. population projections as modified by the Population Reference Bureau -- so we never made "predictions," even though idiots think we have. When I wrote The Population Bomb in 1968, there were 3.5 billion people. Since then we've added another 2.8 billion -- many more than the total population (2 billion) when I was born in 1932. If that's not a population explosion, what is? My basic claims (and those of the many scientific colleagues who reviewed my work) were that population growth was a major problem. Fifty-eight academies of science said that same thing in 1994, as did the world scientists' warning to humanity in the same year. My view has become depressingly mainline!

Ask the people in ...
Oklahoma and Colorado about Global Warming.

global farse
The people who buy into the effects of global warming are the probably the same people who are ignorant to the fact that God has complete control over the earth and it's climate. And since He said that He would never flood the earth again, I'm gonna go ahead and take Him at His word.

To Thickasabrick
You said:
"By the way, I wonder what Du-Pont et al. are doing. They seem to be going along with this arrant nonsense. Why don't they just get back to looking after their bottom line, that's what I say."

duPont is just doing what any company who wants to make money would do, they developed non-cfc based coolant in order to cause everyone in the first world to have to convert. They are more than willing to sell more expensive (and profitable) non-cfc based chemicals to those who want them. And for those in the third world who can't buy the newer, more expensive chemicals? They just sell the old ones. You may note that duPont is making more money now than they did when they were fighting the change. The same is not going to be said for those companies who have to spend more money than they can recoup with higher prices, all due to climate change politics.

If it is such an important issue that everyone change to more global warming friendly products, why is it that third world producers like China and India are exempted? If global warming is anything other than a political charade, they are far more likely to cause climate problems as they become more affluent from their cheap labor and products exports.

Why
do otherwise rational, intelligent people rely on the 'it's a cold winter in ...X, therefore global warming must be made up'? argument to debunk the phenomenon? There is no rational or logical basis for this argument. None. I'm not saying I believe in global warming as presented by Gore et al. I just wonder about the reasoning of applying an isolated instance to define a long term trend.

To dunkel
I think everyone agrees that there has been a long term slow warming trend since the end of the little ice age. Its just that logical people do not accept made up arguments that humans have made a significant contribution to the trend. Particularly we don't think that CO2 has a lot to do with it. Most people are being sarcastic when they talk about the cold snaps that occur here and there.

The oceans will rise
Well, if that is true why are we still spending multimillions to resurect New Orleans? Sensible folks would not want to return to that hell hole anyway. Rename the city New Atlantis and forget maintaining the dykes.

I am afraid... very afraid!
It was 3 degrees this morning over here in southeastern Massholechusetts... I blame Al Gore!
I agree with whoever mentioned Michael Crichton's "State of Fear".. an excellent and informative book, plus very entertaining (I like what happens to the actor at the end of the book...LOL).
I am sick of the Liberal Thought Police.. but what sickens me more is all the idiots who believe the BS.
I discuss global warming in my novel "Violation! The Bitchings of a Boston Meter Maid" ... the main character is hilariously politically incorrect and bashes liberals throughout the novel (on many topics from guns to the environment to abortion).
shameless plug... :D!

Solution
Plug cow's butts and liberal's mouths.

CO2 level plummet overnight!

Vic
I get it, but sarcasm doesn't translate well without tone. I wish it did, but I'm probably too sarcastic as it is.

Thickasabrick
The reason you don't know that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas is that Hansen and Gore think you would not be as frightened by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide if you knew that it only represents about 2.5% of the greenhouse gas effect. The temperature increase the alarmists predict is the result of other "forcings" caused by a slight increase in the greenhouse gas effect. Part of reason for many to doubt the computer models that predict large temperature increases is that the models need what Freeman Dyson calls "Fudge Factors" to replicate temperature history.

To Why

You have a good question. But why not ask why newspapers and Al Gore say that record high temperatures occurring during the summer confirm that Global Warming is happening? After all, temperature records have been kept for less than 100 years, and those records are not reliable. Data show that Earth's temperature has been falling since 1998. Russian Scientists are predicting falling temperatures for the next few decades. Maybe those guys who predicted a new ice age starting in 2000 were right after all.

Gunny G.
I love your sense of humor!


krightgrrl
Just ordered a copy of your book.

dunkel
You're right. The this-low-temperature-disproves-global-warming crowd should acknowledge that abnormally cold weather is merely "a weather anomaly caused by global warming."

(That's sarcasm, by the way, pointing out that the global warming crowd has covered all bases.)

Sound Ideas???
Was it not Harold MacMillan who said,

“As usual the Liberals offer a mixture of sound and original ideas. Unfortunately, none of the sound ideas is original and none of the original ideas is sound.”

polly

That's why it is an easy theory to sell (until you look past the surface)--"falsifications" are easily expalined away.

dunkel

You criticise people for pointing out that it's colder than usual in ******. And expect them to swallow the global warming theory ( not fact).

Those who are old enough to remeber the articles in the mid 20th century about "the coming ice age" are rightfully skeptical about the theory.

As pointed out before, one big volcano can skew the temperatures for years to come.

It is my theory that Al Gore is as bad a science writer as he was war correspondent.

the wests terrorism
Mohammad said that a terrorised people are easier to conqure, and it is so with our governments, if we are terrorised by global warming, bird flu, stavation, etc, then we are easier to conqure.. maybe not a war conqure as we know war, but conqure as effectively as war. The left would terrorise us just as effectively for their cause...

global warming due to the sun heating up
Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. How do we square the fact that every planet is heaating up.

By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
check these out..
Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists ...Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.

- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.

- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

- Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame






packrat
No, my point (which is essentailly a throw-away) was about people debunking the myth by observing a fixed instance and inferring a trend. GW is sold with bad science, I agree. I was referring to the faulty logic of the rebuttal. Again, somewhat tongue in cheek, because of all of the 'debate' that normally occurs on these threads.

planting trees ekekekkek
No I am not a greenie... but I have a question to ask...
IF it is true??? that we humans are spewing tooo much CO2's over the earth, which is causing global warming, then why are our governments world wide not insisting that we plant more trees??? Doesn't trees abosrb CO2?????... So if we do have a problem then why are our very knowlegable governments letting us cut down these life saving trees????
It is all a scam to terrorise the people, get them worked up over nothing and keep our minds off what is really going on.....and dare I say that, could that be globalisation...terrorising us into thinking that the only answer for all these imaginary ills is to have a one world government..???? just a thought and I would love to know what others think as this is one way we can learn, but read some of my post on the sun heating up all planets...

To Gaye
Actually the acreage planted in tress IS increasing in the U.S. The reason you don't here about this too much is that the object of everyone but the real hardcore inviro-nuts is NOT to stop CO2 emissions. The real reason for pushing this cr*p is the same as all of the other times someone pushes some big Gov fix. Its MONEY pure and simple. The scientists pushing GW get research money from the Gov. The big companies get to market some new device that will make everything better. The big banks get to act as agents in the transfer of money from “rich” countries to poor 3rd world countries. And the 3rd world countries through their spokesperson the U.N. get free money by selling “carbon credits”. The only thing that the scientists and common sense people get is to pay the new taxes and be castigated by the MSM and Hollywood limousine liberals.

Climate change
I live in Interior Alaska. Back during the last ice age, the continental ice shelf missed the Tanana Valley. I don't know why, but geology shows that the ice shelf just flowed around our area. It made a nice oasis for warm-weather animals and plants. Wooly mammoth, steppe bison and saber-tooth cats lived on the prairie and in the taiga. The ground was and still is cold, so anything dying and getting buried by some soil was well-preserved for future discovery and study.

I'd like a global change alarmist to tell me why a steppe bison had buttercups in its stomach when it died during that ice age. You see, buttercups don't grow at this latitude. I can't even cultivate them. I suppose I could grow them in a greenhouse, but I know I can't grow them out in a flower bed. So, why were they growing wild here on the 49 parallel during an ice age when they can't grow here during a "warming" trend?

And, people wonder why I am a skeptic? Well, maybe it's because I think the science ought to make sense and consistency would be the first hallmark of that. If we've grown "hotter than we've ever been before" how come I can't grow buttercups when they grew wild here when the entire valley was surrounded by mile-thick ice sheets?

aurorawatcher
Outstanding post!

You just gave good evidence of the cyclical nature of temperature and climate on earth.

GOOD POST vic
All you Global Warming Deniers;
They are already pushing to make it unlawful to deny GW.

Now I make my infalible prediction!
The weather will eventually CHANGE!

England already has a "Green Tax"
Information is kind of scarce though.
Money goes to buy "Green Credits" from 3rd World.
Does that sound sorta like redistribution of Wealth?
Like Communism?

Paula Jo
Thank you for buying my book! I hope you enjoy it! (sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I went off line for the day until my husband told me you bought my book). In my novel the main character is obnoxiously conservative (In a wonderfully humourous way), though I'm sure if Liberals read it they will hate her, which is excellent. The book is filled with swearing, which is as it was for me (I'm an x-meter maid). It's a wild ride around Boston~ sex, drugs, rock n roll and parking tickets... One could call it a "South Park Conservative" type of book. I hope you get back on this comments page! thanks again!
k

Jon
asked, " What makes anyone consider their prophecies for forty years from now any more accurate?"

Because, Jon, it's not about predicting weather. It's about using the scare tactic of "global warming" to get control of private enterprise and to control people's lives (all in the name of "saving the planet".

Periodically, the planet warms and cools naturally over thousands of years. The greenhouse effect is caused mainly by water vapor (CO2 is way down the list), but the power grabbers want people to think it's anthropogenic and can be reversed. It can't.

some problems are real
In some places in the world overpopulation is a problem. One of the reasons we are subject to so much illegal immigration is that Mexico and some other Latin American countries have too much poplulation for their meagre economies. Look at the population of Mexico City and the stark poverty it breeds. Many African nations are suffering famine because their economies cannot support their population. And if it were not for the reality of nuclear winter the Soviets might have tried a preemptive nuclear strike on us but their scientists knew that it would end up killing them as well as us. Mahmoud Amedinejad does not care about this and if he had the bomb would want to use it.

Wonderful article.
I thought this was a wonderful article!

1'st amendment
The thing we have to fight is the dems attempt to cut back on freedom of speech, and freedom of association. With their fairness doctrine they want to close talk radio and probably websites where people exchange ideas. If you google weather channel and global warming you'll find out that they are trying to decertify any weather forecasting professional if he/she doesn't support the current theory on human caused global warming. CAIR is already using fairness doctrine language to try to control who is invited to speak by Jews to Jews and what they say. They fought Prager being asked to speak to Chabad, and they had students fighting about who Hillel could invite to speak.





Global warming doesn't scare me
the reckless proponents of it do. I have read "State of Fear" and suggest everyone, no matter what side you're on, should read it. He's done his research. But then maybe the global warming activists don't want the truth. That's what scares me the most. I'm very afraid.
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.