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
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
The cows missed the movie
by Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Two British news reports could not have come at a better time for Fred Singer, a scientist and global-warming denier, who has incurred the wrath of global-warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore.

The Independent reported Sunday that a new U.N. report found that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases. In other words, in the universe of global-warming alarmism, cow gas does more damage to Mother Earth than SUVs. (American cars are responsible for some 6 percent of greenhouse gases.)

The Sunday Telegraph reported that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is downgrading its predictions as to how much sea levels will rise due to global warming. The IPCC lowered its upper estimate for sea-level rise by 2100 from 34 inches to 17 inches.

In "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore warned that global warming would cause sea levels to rise by some 20 feet. "I claim that Al Gore is a contrarian because he disagrees with the IPCC," Singer said, as he smiled. Singer was in town to speak at this week's meeting of the American Geophysical Union. Gore also will talk to the group about global warming on Thursday.

If there's one thing that irritates Singer, it is Gore's belief that there is a scientific "consensus" about human-induced global warming, even as Gore incessantly complains about scientists who deny global warming.

"Well, which is it?" Singer asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers. Singer has co-written a book, "Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1,500 Years," that argues that the Earth warms every 1,500 years due to a solar-linked cycle. The book begins in the year 1100, when Vikings grew vegetables on Greenland, where the population reached 3,000 before creeping glaciers and cold killed the remaining residents. Now, Greenland is warm again.

Don't blame manmade global warming for rising sea levels, the book argues. "Sea levels have been rising steadily since the peak of the last Ice Age about 18,000 years ago. The total rise has been 400 feet." For the last 5,000 years, sea levels have risen about 7 inches per century. No surprise, Singer sees the new IPCC take on sea levels as "more realistic" than past predictions.

As vice president, Gore blasted Singer for receiving money from corporate interests. Singer responded by noting that many environmentalists -- and let me add, Gore, who perfected White House fund raising -- have taken money from Big Energy, as well.

Still, I don't think money is the reason Gore has transformed himself from a man who wrote that fighting global warming would require "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation" from committed Americans to a movie figure who argues that reducing greenhouse gases can be profitable.

As Singer noted, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming was supposed to be a first step to reductions in greenhouse gases of more than 50 percent.

For his part, Singer believes that higher CO2 levels follow higher temperatures. Singer also understands that if enviros want to halve greenhouse gases, there are two ways to do it. "You can collapse the world economy," or, as the cow-gas story suggests, you destroy half the population. "Then you could reduce emissions by 50 percent."

I marvel at those who consider themselves to be in sync with the sage voices of science when it comes to global warming, then argue that America can reduce greenhouse gases with better light bulbs and hydrogen fuel cells.

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

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Talking sense about global warming
This liberal appreciates Fred Singer's skepticism about a lot of the alarmism characterizing what I'll call "warmies" like Al Gore. No one in the scientific doubts global warming; what they doubt is (a) the view that most or even all(!) of it is caused by humans and that (b) the destruction of civilization is any way to deal with it. There are still many things scientists don't understand about the dynamics of global warming. There is no universally accepted theoretical framework in existence.

Common sense and sound research are our best guides to this issue. To the extent that cycles of warming and cooling have causes other than human activity, there is really not much we can do except to adapt to the changes, as the human species has already proven it can do.

funny logic enviros have
If you take money from corporations(which provide goods and services to people) then that money is suspect/dirty.

If you take money from government(which can only TAKE goods/services from people) then that money is pure as the wind driven snow.

LOL. I doubt leftists really listen to what they are saying sometimes.

Don't forget
the enviros that predicted half of the world's population would die of starvation five years ago; Or that the next ice age was imminent; or that Califorina would drift off to sea. How many times do the alarmists have to be wrong before we stop reacting to them?

Gestell, you forgot one
On your list of "consensuses," you forgot (3) that Global Warming, whatever its cause, WILL spell the end of civilization as we know it, or will even be bad.

There are they who contend that if temperatures rise enough, Siberia, northern Canada and the Alaskan interior will become aerable, and, thus, capable of producing even more grain, meat, and other food products than even the US does now.

Also, there is no obvious link to warming and things like catestrophic storms. The weather is more likely to get wierd because of an "El Nino" phenomenon (warming of a portion of an ocean) rather than "global climate change." Also, the alarmists who came out in droves and (among other things) blamed Huricane Katrina specifically on President Bush's decision not to sign Kyoto (One of the Kennedys posited that one), or, more generally, that Warming was responsible for the very long, active Atlantic hurricane season we had last year, failed to note 2 things: 1. Worldwide, there were no more tropical cyclones than is normal, and 2. This year's Atlantic season was both much shorter and somewhat lighter than average.

HJG

Scottie
Scottie has asked the best question that I have heard on this topic in some time. I wonder if anyone will ask Algore this questions on Thursday. Don't hold your breath.

I'm not an alarmist, but
I do think we humans could do a lot to treat the planet better. Don't believe in GW if you don't want to, but make no mistake about how poorly we act towards the environment.

my 2 cents
Gestell - good post. Well stated.

For me the title of the article says it pretty well.

It does remind me of a time many years ago when I was in Maine and helping a neighbor one night with his chores - milking the cows. We were doing our thing and one of the bovines cut one that must have gone on for about 30 seconds. My wife (at the time)and I were falling down laughing and no one else noticed. It just went on and on and on.

Just thought I'd share that with you

Super Mario
I don't think anyone here disagrees with what you have just stated. Being good stewards of the earth is not contrary to having a resonable understanding and discussion about the causes of global warming. We will do the greatest good if we don't allow our sympathy alone to rule our actions and engage in reason to come to the truth about it's causes.

Scottie
I stopped listening to those idiots decades ago.

Dad called them "Chicken Littles" and ti fits them to a tee.

I remember the morons decrying breakfast sausage and stating that it causes cancer. It turns out that if you eat 5 pound of it a DAY, IT DOES!

BTW all, check my blog for a couple of scorchers. (Click on my handle.) Tell your friends as well! (One up on ya BrianR for shameless pluggery! haha)

Gas tax/Mario
This most recent revelation in the U.N.'s report, I predict, may lead alarmists to want to charge all beef eaters and producers to pay a cow gas tax. The Kiwis tried to do that awhile back. (Milk drinkers get a pass because they aren't complicit with the murder of innocent animals, but they are certainly profiteers at the expense of unwitting bovines)
While it sometimes may be said that conservatives have been slower to acknowledge some poor stewardship of earth's resources, we must be quick to note that the hand in my pocket has been the liberal steward who often has ignored the law of unintended consequences, created and funded a hospital to apply a band-aid, and expected everyone to be "understanding" that their goal was noble.

I live in Alaska
I'm not too worried about the glaciers melting. The growing season has increased by about a week since the start of the 20th century. The winter-time temperatures in Fairbanks have warmed a bit since I was a child. It used to get -50 degrees for as much as six weeks a winter and now it gets to -40 degrees for a couple of weeks and then warms up. However, outside of the towns, the old patterns remain, so I'm not thinking this is global warming as much as it is metropolitan effect.

On the other hand, summers used to be hotter here. The typical pattern would be overnight cools of 50-60 degrees (remember, the sun just goes down below the horizon and it never gets dark in the summer) and then days of 70-90 degrees from Memorial weekend to late-August. By mid-afternoon, we'd be dying from the heat (air conditioning is not something most would choose to pay for given the cost of winter time heating). Then, about 4-6 pm a thunder shower would roll up from the south-west and it would pour for 15 minutes, cool everything off and be dry by the time the adults got home from work. The State Fair was in early-August and it would always be pleasantly warm for it. Then, it would start raining about August 20 and things would slide off into fall as school started.

Now, overnight lows are still pleasant, but it rains a lot all day long all summer long. June is still pretty pleasant, but July and August are wet. Last summer, I had to take a day off work just to mow the lawn between rain storms.

But the environmentalists insist things are hotter and drier here. You'd almost think they're living in a different town than the one I live in.

Here's a funny one for you, torn straight from the headlines. A couple of winters ago, we didn't get much snow. Fairbanks can get as much as 12 feet in a winter or as little as a couple of inches, so nobody was really surprised. Then it rained in December and some of us saw grass sticking out of our lawns in sheltered areas. Rain after Halloween in Fairbanks IS unusual, but it had happened in my lifetime, so I didn't think much of it. Then the enviros at the University started yakking about how this was PROOF of global warming and a sign of imminent ecological collapse. A reporter for the News-Miner must have gotten bored (or knew some really old Alaskans) because he came up with a story from December 1, 1922 when the News-Miner was predicting no snow for Christmas. The town had had a low snow year, a rain in November and then no more snow, and the streets and roofs were devoid of snow. It snowed a couple days before Christmas, so the prediction was wrong, but the story was indicative of something to me.

The environmentalists want us to believe that the sky is falling, but history shows that it isn't. The world moves in cycles and sometimes those cycles are so huge that human beings can't keep record. That doesn't mean we're the cause of some environmental catastrophe. It means we simply are witnessing something we haven't seen before.

Maybe environmentalists have really big egos and think they control the universe. Maybe some of them have such self-loathing that they want to see mankind destroyed to satisfy some guilt issues of their own. Maybe we should be medicating these people for paranoia instead of giving them television air time to convince our children that they are as egocentric and godlike as the current crop of environmentalists. Remember, small children think the world revolves around them and their actions. Adults normally grow out of that notion.

Normally.

If they're so worried about
cow farts emitting CO2, instead of cutting back on mankind's progress, they should promote it. Why not genetically engineer some (light green) plankton that spreads over a wide area of the ocean? We could have plankton farms, and with the light color, raise the albedo of the planet. The plankton could be harvested into any number of useful products (like, say... food), and would release high concentrations of O2 (due to the aforementioned genetic engineering.)

But no, the answer is always to pull back, stop technology, hamstring mankind, and if adopted, kill off half the human population.

Gunny, the sky is
warming!

People, People, People
Ther is a govrnment web site, I belve it's run by NOAA, that take sattellite pictures of the earth showing polution levels. I'm not a scientist so don't ask me how they do it.

If you look at a continuous group of them for a long period of time you will discover that most of the U.S. is relatively polution free except the major population centers and even some of them have good days.

Next go to the photos of China, India, Mexico and other third and fourth world countries. The have a larger percentqge of their land mass covered in polution and for a much greater period of time.

It isn't the U.S. that's dumping all the greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and causing everything, but tell that to Gore and get him to believe it. China dumps more in a coupld a days than we do all year.

The earth warming and cooling is a cylical affair, as shown by the growing vegetables in Greenland remark, and the end of the ice ages. When these things happened there were no industrilaized nations, leaky airconditioners or cave men driving SUV's. The worst thing at the time was animal flatulance. As Rush has reported, repeating what REAL scientists say, the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapor and the oceans are the biggest poluters.

Hmm...
Maybe the world just get sick of blaming the Jews for everything so they Americans made a good group to blame everything on as well. Thank God there are still reasonable people on this Earth of ours.

It all goes back to
the libs and tree huggers thinking that somehow they have to do our thinking for us because we are too stupid to really get it. That is really what this is all about: power. Just like the do gooders in NYC outlawing trans fats for cooking.

They want to destroy our economy, pure and simple. Else why take off after SUVs and trucks, which we in the US actually need in most cases. But by telling us that we are selfish, etc., they can destroy the auto industry (again, another evil, faceless corporation). 1 out of 6 jobs in the US is automotive related, and if they can hurt that, then they can drive up unemployment, which will in turn lead to...more gov't handouts and more people dependent upon the gov't to tell them what to do.

Albore and that Kennedy idiot that decries our selfishness are hypocrites of the first kind. Kennedy rides around in a private plane for crying out loud (Hannity brought that up several times). If they were serious or believed GW was really our fault they'd walk or ride a bicycle to get around.

It is all about power, and telling others what to do.

Shills
Environmentalists who whine that scientists who don't accept the prevailing views on global warming are nothing but shills for industry don't understand the way science works. Where a scientist gets his money is irrelevant. If he's doing good science (that is, getting results that can be replicated), then the source of the money is irrelevant because the results will stand on their own merits. And if he's doing bad science, then that alone is reason to condemn him. Either way, the source of the money, and hence being a shill, doesn't matter.

Saying "you are a shill for industry" is just another way of saying "You're getting results I don't like, and I can't refute them any other way."

jdw
"Why not genetically engineer some (light green) plankton that spreads over a wide area of the ocean? We could have plankton farms,"

Actually, there are several research projects looking into that. One of the proposals would seed the ocean with molecular iron, a limiting nutrient for plankton. No need for genetic engineering; encourage the natural plankton, and they'll do the job just fine. Assuming, that is, that the oceans aren't too acidic (the other environmental danger of too much CO2).

JFP
"If he's doing good science (that is, getting results that can be replicated), then the source of the money is irrelevant because the results will stand on their own merits"

The thing is, none of the skeptics are getting results of their own, they're just criticizing the conclusions of others. Noami Orekes published a paper in Science magazine in late 2004 that surveyed over 900 papers in scientific journals that had dealt with global climate change over the previous ten years. She found that not a single one disagreed with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. Some of them dealt with pre-human climate change, and the rest, 75% of the sample, all supported the idea that humans are significantly contributing to global climate change.

Now, maybe she just missed the skeptical papers, but given the size of her sample, it's not likely. Maybe there have been some written since then with original data that shows that the skeptics are right, but I've never heard of any. I'm not a climatologist, but I have been researching the issue. If anyone has seen a skeptical paper published in a scientific journal, please let me know.

Michael Crichton
sums it up best in his novel "State of Fear."

It all comes down to one thing, those who suffer the genetic anomaly that causes them to want to control the behavior of everyone else will adhere to any crackpot theory and cry doom for all mankind. It's all about controlling the populace.

Actually
A lot of what the cow emitted was methan. If we could get Al Gore and friends to collect it for us as it is produced by the cows, perhaps we could reduce our "energy crisis"

Methane
Methane comes out one end, CO2 out the other. Sorry about the typo.

Point left out...
The item not being discussed (hogrider touched on it) is the theory that environmentalism is a political-economic movement whose goal is to destroy capitalism.

In the 1970's the environmentalists insisted that cars had to be 95% pollution-free. When that was achieved without destroying our capitalist economy the environmentalists demanded that we go to 99% pollution-free.

When the auto industry achieved that the environmentalists resorted to attacking CO2, knowing that it is a by-product of all combustion of all carbon-based fuels, thus making it impossible for industrial scientists to eliminate or minimize it.

Take a look at every area in which environmentalists attempt to affect energy policy. Every one of their suggestions involves reducing available energy (with the exception of the hydrogen fuel cell, which is not yet practical). This is the earmark of the destruction of capitalism and the imposition of socialism.

Look at the suggestions (so far) on this board. The article says cows cause 3 times as much CO2 as cars, but all the suggestions above continue to concentrate on auto fuel emissions; deal with 6% of the problem because why? Because the real effort is to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism/communism.

I remain skeptical that an increase in the amount of CO2 generated by energy-producing combustion has done anything other than increase the health and quantity of plant life, which depends on CO2 the way animals depend on oxygen.

Frey
The issue of funding, if it is relevant for skeptics, is also relevant for true believers. Where do these scientists get their money? From government grants. One might assume, given that Republicans dominate our government, that they also dominate the grants committees, but such committees are more likely to be peopled by those who already agree that global warming is happening. So, it is not surprising that most scientific papers on global warming "prove" that it is happening.

Also, I've had some experience with academic publishing (in the humanities and not the sciences). Any scientist who was a skeptic would have a hard time getting his articles published, so again it is not surprising.

What is surprising is that no one is using the conclusions developed by another branch of the left, the postmodernists. According to such people -- and I don't necessarily agree with them -- science is unreliable, and its results merely reflect the prejudices of those currently in power. In this case, "those currently in power" would be the left, because in this instance we are talking about cultural power and not political power.

To say all this in other words, I'm not going to sign on to the theory of global warming until, at the very least, I see a debate between environmentalists and postmodernists.

Another interesting position
I do not have the citation, but there were a few years ago a handful of scientists concerned about CO2 depletion. It appears that during ice ages, the CO2 levels of earth tend to drop, and, as our CO2 levels now are below those preceding the last ice age, they were concerned that another ice age could reduce CO2 to levels too low to support our current vegetation.

It may be wrong, it may be right, I certainly know too little to argue it one way or the other, but it sure proves there is no "concensus" on these issues.

Some citations
I still haven't been able to find the citations for the articles I mentioned (they are in "Rational readings On Envrionmental Concerns" [Jay Lehr ed.], but I have not found them on the net.)

However, I found two different copies of the same short paper which does kind of debunk this whole "there is a concensus on global warming". This shows there isn't even a concensus on the trend of CO2:

http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ (A better formatted copy of the link preceding)


Bovine emissions
I have to tell you the same story in The Scotsman run on Monday is a LOT funnier. http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1834432006

Especially the comment section. I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Good to see the majority of people are not excited about global warming but are all for poking fun at the high priests of tree huggers.

wiseone
Wise, wise, wiseone.
It is indeed a communist movement. They are out to destroy capitalist industry. Now they are attacking Big Energy, also in bed with Big Oil. When they push for enough regulation on them that they start to fail, the only answer will be gov’t control. It's already starting in the electrical transmission industy.

Much of the vegan movement is also part of this. They will be out to eliminate cows soon. And when there is not enough demand for vegan foods, they will have to create a government agency to either educate us all on the benefits, and/or produce the stuff. When they start to target the cow farmers they will propose more farm subsidies to assist them, thus getting them dependent on gov’t as well. Watch for Big Beef to fight their reform, and be demonized.

They know what they’re doing. And we sit by. But maybe I’m just a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Mars and Pluto
are experiencing a rise in temperature. Do cows and SUV's exist on these planets?

Does anyone remember
When President Reagan commented that cows probably had more to do with "global warming" than the rest of human civilization?

I do. I also remember how he was vilified by the eco-Luddites (including Al Gore) for his "simplistic" and "stupid" view of "the greatest threat to the world ever seen".

Now the UN (that noted right-wing, anti-environmentalist, Republican puppet organization) is saying that Mr. Reagan was essentially correct in his opinion, based on observation- the "emprical" method so derided by those possessed of "Revealed Truth"- like Al Gore.

Somewhere up in Heaven, Mr. Reagan is smiling, shaking his head, and saying, "There you go again..........."


cheers

eon

Contrary opinions--anti-religion
Apocalyptic preachers used to proclaim the end is near, to little effect. Now why, when environmentalists sing much the same song about the outcome of global warming, does most everyone applaud?

Perhaps it’s because (as Va. state climatologist Patrick Michaels pointed out in a recent piece) most of the “preachers” hog all the space in newspapers and the scientific literature outlets.

To give the latest example, the contrary book “Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1,500 Years” shows how unremarkable the current warming phase is, and not something to get religious over.

And not, as evangalist Al Gore has claimed, “[Global warming] is a moral issue—it affects the survival of human civilization.”

Indeed, we need not repent, imply the book’s authors, Virginians Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. Rather, they note that the advocates of “we’re to blame” for global warming can’t dispute the long-term cycles except to say today is different, based on faulty computer projections.

The book has predictably received hardly any public comment despite its abundant citations of scientific studies and its common sense analyses.
See for yourself: Order one from Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. $24.95.


plankton
I am sure after you implement those ideas, some nutjob will come out with a study:

"Harvard professor studies effect of whale feces on world volcano eruptions - US to blame."

what gas came out of the billion buffalo
that used to roam N America before the cows?

You know, the herd the size of Kansas that used to cover the great plains?

They didnt eat & fart too?

Or how about the TRILLIONS of herd animals that used to cover he african continant and do NOT any more?

they didnt have natural digestive actions either?

at NO point have I read a decent piece of work comparing the biomass of past wild herds against the biomass of current domestic herds.

If Al Gore
would keep his oral sewer shut for a months, I'm betting that CO2 levels would plummet.

global warming
These enviro wackos seem to forget the cold spell after Mt. St. Helens erupted. One huge volcanic eruption in the Northern Hemisphere and we will be begging for for some global warming.

So much for science
A scientific "consensus" is nothing more than a theory, i.e. an educated guess. Scientific "fact" is established when others can repeat an experiment, it goes without saying "others" should get the same results.

Ha anyone ever used a defined experimental procedure to support Al Gore's THEORY? If yes, please publish the methods and data so the unwashed masses can draw their own conclusion. Al's movie should be considered a science fiction work of art, in fact more fiction than science.

On a separate note, let's not forget that Al's credentials include "political science." Lack of capitalization intended. If there was ever an oxymoron "political science is one. The proof is that politics is based on theory and science is all fact. Some would argue that some political theories could be proven; the problem is the judgment of success or failure is highly subjective.

If junk email is the result of Al’s invention he needs to go back to the drawing board………...

If I can sunbathe
in December, I'm for it.

GO GLOBAL WARMING

Jack
Good point. If science was a "consensus" all we'd have to do is vote global warming out of existence.

The Answer is simple!
The answer is simple:

The increase in CO2 levels must be addressed immediately. This is injuring the earth! The rainforests will disappear if this keeps up! (Wait, doesn’t CO2 help plants??) Well, it’s evil, anyway! If warming keeps up, the earth will become warmer! The sea levels will rise by 40 feet! (Wait, where will all of this water come from?? Won’t this benefit the over-fished fish population??) The rainforests may grow to overcome the human population! This will lead to population undergrowth! (Wait, weren’t we warning against population explosions recently?? We should get a government commission to study the impact on Abortion movement.) They may have to increase harvesting operations to control the spread of vegetation! (Wait, we can’t do this, isn’t the rainforest is precious??) This may lead to new, alien species! (We’ll have to protect these until they are viable.) Existing species may go extinct, if they cannot outrun the heat waves as the earth’s temperature increases another couple of degrees! (Doesn’t Darwin argue that survival of the species will ensure only the best will live?? (!ignore!)) (We will need to get a government commission to study the question of government interaction to create a government agency to help relocate these slow moving creatures.)

Back to the issue at hand…

First, we should kill off cattle. (Wait, won’t they then go extinct??) We will have to declare them a protected species after we get rid of several millions of them. (We should ensure that no one benefits economically from the killing of our fellow earth-dwellers. Maybe a government commission could ensure that all funds and bovine carcasses are routed and disposed of properly, without any waste or fraud, like exists in the capitalist world.) Then we can prevent the farmers (Big Beef) from killing any more, and those that still have them on their land will have to be forced to maintain the cows “natural habitat.” (We may need another commission here. Does anyone know what the cows “natural” habitat is anymore? We’ll need to find some wild cows, and then form a government commission to study the habitats of these creatures. (We may need a government commission to find the wild cows, as well.))

The farmers could alternately use their (the government’s) land to grow hemp. This is a much better product that does not contribute to global warming. (Doesn’t the marihuana plant produce more heat then ordinary plants?? (!ignore!)) These plants can be used to produce earth-friendly products, as they will not need to be harvested to produce their products (What?? (!ignore!) As long as the products are not sold on the capitalist market, but are instead distributed by the appropriate government agency, it will be carbon neutral. (We may need a government commission to study the formation of these markets and advise the appropriate government commission on how to create and maintain a supply-demand structure.)) The marihuana (Don’t use that word. Say “hemp” instead.) may also be used by the farmers to alleviate any anxiety they may have due to the lose of their animal friends. (If they smoke it will it contribute to global warming?? We’ll publish brownie recipes through the appropriate government commission.)

Isn’t that simple??

GunnyG, Scottie & Packrat are to blame!
If you guys were eating your fair share of steaks there would be fewer cows flatulating.
Global Warming is all your fault!

Termites are supposed to produce a large percent of the methane in Greenhouse Gas.
I don't know if termites can flatulate or not.
Maybe Congress needs to appoint a TSG to investigate.


To Kimberly, BAH! HUMBUG!
Everybody else, Have a Merry Christmas!

The U.N. Estimate Is Still Too High
17 inches, compared to my estimate of 11 inches, considering that mean sea level rise has been averaging 3mm per year.

One foot per century is sea level rise that no one but scientists will ever notice.

But here, I'm using the same alarmist fallacy that the environmentalist whackos have been using since the mid twentieth century. We simply do not know if the 1990's mean sea level rise, which was all over the place from year to year, will continue to average 3mm/yr. Just like we cannot know if the global cooling trend of the late nineties and early 00's will continue and freeze us all to death in a few centuries.

The greater lesson, IMO, is that gradualism is an untrustworthy and unfounded dogma everywhere.

The sky is getting darker right now
and if we don't do something about it, we'll be in darkness forever.

Jerubaal
I promise if you just use those little spiral economy lights the Sun will return to shine every day and you will save the Earth from Eternal Darkness.

This must be so, else how would I know to say it is so?

You must use the little spiral light bulbs or be DOOMED to darkness.

See what I learned from Al Gore?

JFP
"Where do these scientists get their money? From government grants. One might assume, given that Republicans dominate our government, that they also dominate the grants committees, but such committees are more likely to be peopled by those who already agree that global warming is happening."

Government grants are probably the biggest single source of money, but how do you figure that the grants committees are more likely to populated by people that believe in global warming? Frankly, there's more evidence for the suppression of climate change believers than the suppression of climate change skeptics. Google James Hansen, a climate expert for NASA. And Rick Piltz, a former associate of the Climate Change Science Program. Besides, you yourself said that "Where a scientist gets his money is irrelevant. If he's doing good science (that is, getting results that can be replicated), then the source of the money is irrelevant because the results will stand on their own merits." Well, the results that support global warming can be and have been replicated.

"Also, I've had some experience with academic publishing (in the humanities and not the sciences). Any scientist who was a skeptic would have a hard time getting his articles published, so again it is not surprising."

In an interview with Chris Mooney in 2004, Donald Kennedy, the executive editor-in-chief of the journal Science, said this about the lack of published contrarian papers: "There is no example of a paper that disagreed strongly with the general consensus that has been peer reviewed and failed. The fact is, they're just not being sent. And, then our opponents would say, 'Well, that's because they know you'd never take them.' Well, if there's been no case, how could they know that?"

If the motive for hyping global were grant money, wouldn't the scientists be saying, "We don't know enough about it. Give us money to find out more."? But they aren't saying that, they're saying, "We know the problem exists. We have a good idea of the consequences. You need to do something about it." There is some grant money being spent on ways to mitigate climate change (carbon sinks, for example), but they'd be getting that money anyway. All they'd have to say was, "We don't know if there is a problem, so give us money to find out; and if there is a problem, it will be dire, so give us the money to work on a solution before it's too late." But they're not.

Besides, if money was such a big motivater for these guys, why would they be scientists in the first place? Scientific research (most of which is in academia) as a profession has a lot of things going for it, but a big paycheck is not one of them. If they were the kind of people who were interested in wealth, they wouldn't be relying on grants, they'd be going into industry.

It is possible that the granters are the problem: "Find the results we want or you won't get grant money and be finished as a scientist." But there are hundreds of different sources of funding for research, including sources from the corporate sector. For the scientist to have no choice but to comply, the corporate sources, the non-profit sources, and the government sources would all have to be in collusion.

Wickets
Algore was right. Once the wickets were done in by progress, the doom day clock started.

Sorry I missed the party . . .
Better late than never . . .

Some advice for Ms Debbie . .

1 Miss Debbie - please be careful. An article like this tends to lend credence to the great science "fiction" of global warming. The discussion is no longer "if", but "how fast"?

2 Miss Debbie - if you eat less cow meat, its good for your cholesterol AND the invironment.

It is interesting to note that the issue of climate change is being acknowledged by leaders at the state and city level. Gore may use hyperbole, but it seems even some Republicans believe his position is essentially correct - Gov Schwartzeneger and Sen Lindsay Graham SC to name just two. We need to take prudent action, not limit our actions to meritless repudiations.

CAN HUMANS ADAPT TO GLOBAL WARMING?
Why we should NOT BELIEVE THAT HUMANS CAN ADAPT TO GLOBAL WARMING
Global warming is happening, just ask any mainstream scientist!
The scientific consensus over man-made GW is overwhelming. Just visit any REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION:

Try any of these
The National Academy of Sciences of the G8
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Institute of Physics http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
The American Geophysical Union
The American Meteorological Society
The American Association for the Advancement of Science

Also any other reputable scientific organization. But be wary of many so-called 'independent' organizations. Many of these turn out to be FUNDED BY BIG BUSINESS OR THE ENERGY CONGLOMERATES. It should be of little surprise when these SO-CALLED 'INDEPENDENT' ORGANIZATIONS TURN-OUT TO BE LITTLE MORE THAN PROPAGANDA LAUNDERING ORGANIZATIONS.

But AVOID ANY INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS LISTED HERE:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Evidence of funding scientist to oppose man-made GW science
http://www.realclimate.org/irea_letterJul06.pdf

There is no guarantee that humans will survive any large-scale climate changes.
HUMANS DO NOT HAVE IMMUNITY FROM EXTINCTION.

One of the earlier comments suggested
'that if temperatures rise enough, Siberia, northern Canada and the Alaskan interior will become aerable, and, thus, capable of producing even more grain, meat, and other food products than even the US does now.'

This overlooks two major factors that if temperatures rise enough to melt the permafrost, then:
This implies that daytime temperatures in the tropics, instead of 40 º C to 50 º C may have increased commensurably, RENDERING MANY AREAS OF THE WORLD INHABITABLE. THIS WILL LEAD TO WIDESPREAD STARVATION AND MASSIVE HUMAN MIGRATION TO MORE LIVEABLE AREAS.

However, there is good reason to think that 3 º C of GW, as predicted by the IPCC and described as 'dangerous', really is DANGEROUS.

One of the big problems is trapped methane in ocean-floor methane hydrates and in frozen peat-bogs in Siberia, Alaska and elsewhere. It is estimated that the methane in frozen peat-bogs is the CO2 equivalent of a century of burning fossil fuels at current rates.
THESE PEAT-BOGS HAVE ALREADY STARTED OUT-GASSING.

'The ocean-floor methane hydrates are icy and are highly temperature sensitive.
Methane released .., would warm the Earth, as would methane released from gas hydrates in Arctic sediments as they become warmed during a sea-level rise. .., exacerbate climatic warming and thereby destabilize the climate.'
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

The atmosphere has certainly been much warmer and has had much more CO2 in it in the past than at present. This was during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which peaked about 55 million years ago. Global temperatures during this event may have warmed by 5°C to 8°C within a few thousand years, with the Arctic Ocean reaching a subtropical 23°C. There is evidence for the thermal dissociation of methane hydrate during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, which is believed to have led to a runaway greenhouse effect and massive rise in global temperatures and DIRECTLY CAUSED THE MASS EXTINCTIONS THAT FOLLOWED.

It is not clear where the methane hydrate tipping-point lies, but the icy methane hydrate deposits are extensive and highly temperature sensitive and the danger they pose increases significantly as temperatures rise. The world is inexorably heading toward the tipping point and once we reach it, it will most probably be too late. Once methane releases begin, the subsequent warming will rapidly stimulate further cascading releases of methane, further warming, releases and so-on, producing a runaway greenhouse effect . This is not self correcting, it is self exacerbating! Once started, it seems likely to continue until methane hydrate deposits are exhausted. Increasing temperatures will stimulate increased levels of atmospheric CO2, further increasing warming and additional releases.
http://www.palmod.uni-bremen.de/FB5/geochron/Robert/RPSpeb.html
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_41859.htm
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000PA000615.shtml

IS THIS AN EXPERIMENT THAT WE SHOULD RISK REPLICATING?

PETM atmospheric carbon levels during the period are thought to have been about 2,000-3,000 parts per million (ppm), compared with 380 ppm today.

If this happens, WE ARE ALL DEAD!

References
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908094051.htm

3 Degrees Celsius of Warming
In my earlier post, I mentioned 3 °C of warming.

This is what we are already committed to, even if we adopt the recommendations of the IPCC, which is looking increasingly doubtful.

Note 3 °C, not 2 °C, which was the headline figure!

The recommendations of the IPCC were made on outdated science!

Bush Political interference in Science
Political interference in science
The Bush Administration has overseen an unprecedented increase in the political interference in science.
For an insight into political interference, removal of websites, editing of reports by management, deletion of data, pressure brought to bear to remove references to climate change, restrictions on scientists' media contacts and much more.

Example
The EPA’s decision to hastily close its unique network of scientific libraries. The EPA is destroying documents, selling off library equipment, and limiting access to its critical scientific collection.

Visit
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Atmosphere-of-Pressure.pdf

Buffalo, Cattle and Methane
rivenburg writes: Wednesday, December, 13, 2006 11:10 AM what gas came out of the billion buffalo that used to roam N America before the cows?

Clearly the misinformed rivenburg didn't do any research before typing his ill-considered post!

'In the early 19th century, several million buffalo roamed the Great Plains, but by the mid-1890s, only a few dozen remained.'
According to http://www.nrdc.org/land/parks/pbuffalo.asp

All cattle and calves in the United States as of January 1, 2007, totalled 97.0 million head, slightly above the 96.7 million on January 1, 2006.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Catt//2000s/2007/Catt-02-02-2007.pdf

If we ASSUME that there were three million buffalo AND that their methane out-put is the same as modern cattle, all other things remaining equal, this would suggest that the methane output has increased to ~ 30 times that of the Buffalo!

Now I know these are assumptions, but even if we assume that a buffalo has twice the emissions of a modern steer [assuming that the demographic population mix of cattle and Buffalo is identical] and there were six million Buffalo [twice my earlier figure], all other things remaining equal, that still means that modern cattle emit eight times as much methane.

So it's fairly safe to infer that methane production has probably increased significantly.

The disingenuous thing about this kind of remark is that people like rivenburg just assume that the climate scientists are so dumb that they'd never have thought of this and start sounding-off their half-baked ideas.

If only people like rivenburg would actually learn something about the subject that they have such strong opinions about before assuming the worst and making ill-judged posts, then the world would be a much better informed place!

TYPO
In my post 'CAN HUMANS ADAPT TO GLOBAL WARMING?'

Replace INHABITABLE with UNINHABITABLE

'RENDERING MANY AREAS OF THE WORLD INHABITABLE.'
should read
'RENDERING MANY AREAS OF THE WORLD UNINHABITABLE.'
Oops!

Sea Level figures in article are wrong
Sea Level Rise – Has the IPCC lowered its upper estimate for sea-level rise by 2100 from 34 inches to 17 inches?

No!

This is really so complicated that I'll just post the link:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/the-ipcc-sea-level-numbers/

From here you can get to the IPCC, analysis by professional scientists and much more besides.

Summary
The sea level rise numbers published in the new IPCC report (the Fourth Assessment Report, AR4) have already caused considerable confusion. Many media articles and weblogs suggested there is good news on the sea level issue, with future sea level rise expected to be a lot less compared to the previous IPCC report (the Third Assessment Report, TAR). Some articles reported that IPCC had reduced its sea level projection from 88 cm to 59 cm (35 inches to 23 inches) , some even said it was reduced from 88 cm to 43 cm (17 inches), and there were several other versions as well. These statements are not correct and the new range up to 59 cm is not the full story. Here I will try to clarify what IPCC actually said and how these numbers were derived.

Puerile Sniping
All this sniggering about Al Gore is unjustified, puerile and indicative of the ignorance of the commentators. It is perfectly clear that 'The Inconvenient Truth' was aimed at the the general population. Apart from becoming vegetarian, there is little that the average citizen can do about cattle methane.

We will all have to alter our lifestyles, if we are to meet the necessary reductions in greenhouse gases. This is exactly the message Gore was intending to promote.

The fact that GHGs are higher from cattle means that things are not OK, they are worse!

There is no evidence that Fred Singer is a reliable source of good science. In-fact the opposite would seem to be true:
He has a history of being associated with deceptive disinformation campaigns.
See 'The Denial Machine' for more information,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811
also
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

Beware Corporations Bearing Statistics
One of the big problems that has confused many regarding global warming is the plethora of conflicting statistics.

Some of these are genuine, just as when different scientists perform experiments on different days they get different results, mostly broadly similar, but sometimes wildly different.

However, there is good reason to believe that a great deal of information regarding global warming is fallacious, wrong or deliberately misleading.

It is important to know the source of the information, because certain nameless companies who might lose-out financially from reductions in CO2 emissions might just be motivated to suppress 'inconvenient' data or supply fictitious information statistics in an attempt to 'prove' that global warming is a myth

If the source of the data is hard to identify - assume it's highly dubious

Needless to say the corporations are not stupid and carefully launder their phoney statistics and pseudoscience via ostensibly 'independent' organizations.
See http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

I believe that something like this has happened before!
Tobacco, Cancer, cigarettes - Need I say more?
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.