Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 25, 2007
Debra J. Saunders :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hooey Denier Deniers
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.?


If you want to convince the world that an overwhelming majority of scientists believes in global warming, then start by ignoring scientists who are not true believers. First, establish lists of scientists with your approved position, then smear dissidents. Soon, up-and-coming scientists will be afraid to cross the rigid green line.

So, the Society of Environmental Journalists put together a guide on climate change that lists a number of publications on global warming, scientists and seven environmental groups, each with positive descriptions. Under the "Deniers, Dissenters and 'Skeptics'" category are four listings -- all negative. They suggest that these folk are venal, partisan and bad scientists, or all of the above.

According to the SEJ guide, University of Virginia professor Patrick Michaels "still claims to be the Virginia 'state climatologist' although the state has disavowed him." The publisher of George Mason University professor Fred Singer's books is connected with the "Moonie" leader, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. The Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank has received oil money. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has a flack "whose resume brags of starting the 'Swift Boat' story that injured candidate John Kerry." The short list, with a senator even, suggests they had run out of dissident scientists -- or dissident scientists they could squeeze into the venal-lightweight box.

James O'Brien -- director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies and former Florida state climatologist, and not listed in the SEJ guide -- said of guide's terms for nonbelievers: "I don't like the term 'deniers.' They're trying to say we're like Holocaust deniers." He didn't make that up. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman recently wrote that "global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

It ought to tell you something that the guide focuses not on the issues, but personal issues and credentials of nonbelievers. Ooooooh, a senator has a flack who spins. How nefarious. I'm sure global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore only hired monks.

Most insulting is the insinuation that skeptics are after money, while believers are pure. Nonsense, David Legates, Delaware state climatologist, told me. Dire global warming predictions draw the big bucks in research these days: "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

"Hooey" is the term also used by Reid Bryson, the father of scientific climatology, in the (Madison, Wis.) Capital Times, as he explained: "If you want to be an eminent scientist, you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"

Legates tells students who are not global-warming true believers, "If you don't have tenure at a major research university, keep your mouth shut."

Dissenting scientists do not deny that the planet is getting warmer. As O'Brien noted, "I believe that there is global warming and it's probably due to natural as well as human causes." But also, "It's not occurring as fast as the alarmists say," and its consequences won't be as dire as they say. SEJ should see the value in skeptics who challenge the global-warming orthodoxy -- which can make global warming forecasts more concise -- instead of suggesting that no good scientists have alternative views.

O'Brien sees a schism in the science community, with real-world scientists -- think former Director of the National Hurricane Center Neil Frank -- on one skeptic side, and environmentalists and ecologists, who "if they see more turtles this year than last year, they write a paper" on the worst-case-scenario other.

Legates noted that state climatologists deal in patterns and cycles and "tend to be more skeptical of the extreme climate change scenarios."

Politicians, thus, have begun to stifle state climatologists who are not global-warming boosters -- oddly with little complaint that evil politicians are trying to censor noble scientists.

Oregon state climatologist George Taylor is a skeptic. Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, asked Oregon State University to stop Taylor from using a title he had used without complaint since 1991. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, also a Democrat, pulled a similar move on Michaels, who is now the American Association of State Climatologists-designated state climatologist in Virginia.

As if it's a bad thing to be recognized by fellow climatologists, instead of a politician -- at least to the Society of Environmental Journalists.

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.
WARM vs COLD
Squelching dissenting opinions on CO2 caused global warming is ridiculous.
Per NOAA, the USA mean temperature has increased only about 1 degree since 1895. This post "Little Ice Age" current warm period could be a sequel of the 350 year Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 1000 years ago. .
Unfortunately, the earth has been in a perpetual Ice Age (Pleistocene Epoch) for over 2,000,000 years; in that the Glacial cold durations are about 100,000 years (90%) while the inter-glacial warm period are only about 10,000 years (10%). Within our current Inter-glacial warm period (Holocene Epoch) there are separate cold and warm periods that last years, decades or even centuries.
One thing is for sure, warmer is much, much better that colder. The Ice Ages proxy data reveals that there was very, very bad weather during those periods. Lots of severe wind, blizzards, dust storms, etc. The next Ice Age will most likely effectively eradicate much of the developed and advanced countries of the Northern Hemisphere.
It doesn't take much to upset our limited perception of normal weather and climate conditions. Actually, based on historical data, there really isn't any normal climate, except the one you live in today and have acclimate to it. Enjoy it while it lasts. The overdue next Ice Age will be very LONG and really BAD.
I find Paleoclimatology a very fascinating subject and have read many books and articles on this subject over the past 30 years. I fail to comprehend how all of the current global warming hysteria scare articles do any good; except to promote vast government futile spending to circumvent future theoretical warming.

What I can't understand is
the designation that CO2 is BAD/pollutant. How can that be if ALL plants need it to survive? If we eliminate CO2 all plants would DIE!

I could kind of go with that hydroflurocarbon is bad - cause it's hard to pronounce (forgive me if I got it wrong.)

And if you admit that CO2 is necessary for plants, aren't we doing something GOOD for the planet by making more, like increasing that despoiled rainforest they USED to belabor?



The muzzling of skeptics
Note that I'm being very kind here in calling it muzzling, but if such a thing is happening, it's not because these scientists don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, it's because the "evidence" they put forward in support of their views are always such a load of BS! Let's go through a few.

"Only 3% of carbon emissions are man-made."

True, but that statement completely ignores the Earth's carbon sink, which includes the ocean, plants, soils, etc. The sink currently absorbs the equivalent of 100% of natural emissions and about half of man-made emissions (that's right; nature's actually been partially covering our rears). If these guys are expecting to taken seriously when talking about carbon, I'd expect them to have at least a basic knowledge of the carbon cycle.

"95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor"

This figure is just plain wrong. I was able to track this claim down to a 1993 paper, but it turned out to be about absorbtion of solar radiation, not about the greenhouse effect at all. There is no scientific basis for this figure. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas (36-70%), but carbon dioxide still accounts for between 12 and 26 percent of the effect, not insignificant at all. (Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, by J.T. Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, February 1997)

"Global warming is caused by the sun."

For the warming trend in the first half of the 20th century, that's true. We had a very significant warming trend, we had a significant increase in solar flux (or sunspots, I forget which), greenhouse gases hadn't icreased much by then, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. But we're currently in a warming trend of similar magnitude, and what's the sun been doing? Well, nothing. Over the past twenty years, solar flux and sunspot occurance have been stable, or slightly decreasing. How can the sun be causing a change when the sun itself has not been changing?

"Anti-global warming measures would hurt the economy."

This argument isn't just for economists anymore, more and more scientists are using it too. This one has a little more traction, but it's still wrong. We don't have to speculate about this, we have real-world examples. Four European countries, France, Sweden, Germany, and our friends in the UK, have all cut carbon emissions to below 1990 levels, in Germany's case by 17%. So how have their economies been doing? Well, pretty well, as it turns out. In the period between 1998 and 2006, all of their GDPs (every single one) grew at a faster rate than that of the United States. True story; I got the 2006 figures from the International Monetary Fund and the 1998 figures from the economic historian Argus Madison. So if there was a net cost, it can't have been very much, and it's more likely there was actually a net benefit.

If the skeptics ever came up with a convincing argument, I'd be the first one to change my views. But they haven't yet, and if they're trying to pass stuff like this, I'd be surprised if they ever did.

Solutions
STOP CONTINENTAL DRIFT and turn down the Sun.

don’t forget
that the pesky dihydrous monoxide can be found in many of the most dangerous substances on the planet, kills citizens of every country on earth every year, and is demonstrably associated with some of the worst pollutants. Let’s ban it!

Listen to my “believe in global warming” at:
http://www.myspace.com/hennypennyandthedoomfromthesky

global warming
has been going on for probably millions of years.
but it seems to be a natural occurence.
Scientists have told us there used to be 300ft of
ice in death valley. it didn't melt in the last 100yrs
And that the rotation of the earth has slowed to
a very smaall degree
And that north america is moving west in relation
to the globe.
-------------------------------------------------
Is the sun burning hotter? no one knows
There is no way to accuratly measure the earth's
temperature....thermometers have never been made
totally precise..and you would have to place them
no more than 100ft apart even if they precise.

The ice has been melting(it is where get our rivers & streams & drinkink water) for millions
years.

To understand why we see changes more clearly,
Try this:
Show someone a 15ft rope..then without them seeing, cut off 1foot..and they will not be able
to see a change.
Do the same thing with a 3ft rope and they can
see the change at once.

By the numbers!
If the earth's "carbon sink" is absorbing half of the man made emissions; and, if carbon concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilized; then, carbon emissions levels must be reduced by half to stabilize concentrations at the level they have achieved in the year the emissions levels are halved.

If, as has been suggested, we cannot continue to rely on the earth's "carbon sink" to absorb half of the man made emissions in the future; and, if carbon concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilized; then, reductions greater than 50% would be required.

These reductions might need to be as large as the "90% by 2050" currently being "preached" by Al Gore, especially if China and India continue to increase their emissions unabated.

the oops
don't blame me for my errors in typing.
neither me or the machine are in the best of shape.

laughing boy . . .
. . . and your point is?

global warming
has been going on for probably millions of years.
but it seems to be a natural occurence.
Scientists have told us there used to be 300ft of
ice in death valley. it didn't melt in the last 100yrs
And that the rotation of the earth has slowed to
a very smaall degree
And that north america is moving west in relation
to the globe.
-------------------------------------------------
Is the sun burning hotter? no one knows
There is no way to accuratly measure the earth's
temperature....thermometers have never been made
totally precise..and you would have to place them
no more than 100ft apart even if they precise.

The ice has been melting(it is where get our rivers & streams & drinkink water) for millions
years.

To understand why we see changes more clearly,
Try this:
Show someone a 15ft rope..then without them seeing, cut off 1foot..and they will not be able
to see a change.
Do the same thing with a 3ft rope and they can
see the change at once.

A comparison
Let's say I showed you the last 2 series of plays in the last Super Bowl. Let's say I also showed you a Blackberry computer. Then let's say I claimed to accurately predict every play of the 2007 Indianapolis Colts season, using only that data and that instrument.

Well, humanity's been measuring temperature exactly for @ 280 years (and that's only one factor involved). Humanity's been doing computer modeling of weather for @ 50 years. And the Earth, according to these scientists, is @ 4.567 billion years old.

Poor research by Frey
Frey is reading the talking points from RealClimate and Wikipedia again. Claiming that the carbon cycle is in equilibrium except for the un-natural human sources is ridiculous. Science doesn't understand what happens to at least one half of the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere every year. RealClimate claims we can identify the human CO2 by the isotopes it contains. This is more junkscience like every thing Michael Mann does. The one thing we know is that the 800 pound gorilla of CO2 is the oceans which make our efforts look paltry. CO2 is outgassed from the oceans during warm times while it is absorbed back into the ocean during cold times.

The 95%GHG effect attributed to water vapor is correct. CO2 competes on the same IR bands to absorb heat as H2O and since H2O is so much more plentiful its effects dwarf CO2. CO2's effect also occurs within 30 feet of the earth's surface where water vapor has a much higher range.

The sun has been more active in the last several decades than in the last 300 years. Its relative intensity is only part of the equation -the other is how it interacts with cosmic ray energy. Lower activity allows cosmic rays to generate more low-level clouds which exert a cooling effect. Higher activity reduces clouds which allows for greater warming.

Only two of the countries you named have actually reduced their emissions, UK and Sweden. France's so-called reductions are entirely from converting their energy plant to nuclear. Germany only shows a reduction because they shut down all the inefficient factories from East Germany at the end of the Cold War. the claim that their economies grew faster than ours is complete nonsense. None of these economies even average 1% growth while the US is consistently above 3%. The US has actually held the rate of emissions growth to just over 1% during the past 5 years while the EU has seen their rates grow by 5% with much less economic growth.

Frey's claims are completely bogus.

By the Numbers 2!
A 90% reduction of US carbon emissions by 2050 would require the investment of ~$10-30 trillion over the period; or, ~2-5% of GDP per year over the period. US population will be ~500 million by 2050, at current growth rates, so a 90% absolute reduction would require a 94% reduction on a per capita basis. That would limit fossil fuel consumption to commercial aviation; and, to chemical processing with carbon capture and sequestration.


Questions for the global warming crowd..
Thanks, Debra, for outing the political strong-arm tactics of the global warming activists.

Here is my list of questions and points on the subject. Do the global warming activists, who claim they know oh so very much science, have good, solid data on any of the fields of study I’ve listed? Do their climate models answer these questions? Are we anywhere close to producing a comprehensive theory of global climate, comparable to those achieved by physics with the theory of relativity or by biologists with the theory of evolution? I think not.

• What is climate and what determines it?

• How has global (and local) climate changed over the eons?

• What do we really mean by global climate? With the great variations in climate from the poles to the equator, can we really say Earth has a “global” climate?

• Carbon in the atmosphere—what effect does it have?

• How much carbon do volcanoes vent? How much does human activity vent?

• Ozone holes—what effects do they have? Are they a natural, cyclic phenomenon?

• Water in the atmosphere—what effect does it have? How much is needed for change?

• Cloud cover and the Greenhouse Effect. Is this really understood?

• Precipitation—water falling out of the atmosphere? What effect does it have?

• The albedo effect. How much reflectivity does the Earth have? (rate of reflecting light back into space). Example: Minnesota in the winter time has a high albedo rating.

• The world’s oceans acting as giant solar batteries. Again, what effect?

• The Sun—how do small change in energy output affect our world’s climate?

• Sunspots—11-year energy cycles.

• Longer solar energy output cycles.

• Geology—the arrangement of the continents and their effects? Lack of open flow of water near the North Pole due to the Arctic Ocean surrounded by continents and the South Pole covered by the Antarctic continent.

• Geology—the study of ancient climate by using earth core samples and ice core samples. What do we really know?

• The human factor—is there any and how much?

• History—the Little Ice Age and the Little Climate Optimum as examples of the variability of climate in Europe in the past thousand years.

• Climate flipping—Caused by the occasional interruption of the flow of the Gulf Stream.

• Is global warming really happening —evidence for and against?

• The Milankovitch cycle—composed of Precession: Earth completing one wobble on its axis every 23,000 years, Eccentricity: Changes in the shape of Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun every 100,000 years, and Tilt: The angle of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of its orbit varies between 21.5 and 24.5 degrees over a period of 41,000 years. We know this cycle corresponds to the history of our ice ages. What effect might it be having on our climate right now?

• Possible effects of ocean vents, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, etc.

• The Weather Channel. Have the meteorologists there gone along with the global warming movement out of conviction or convention?

• Local and national reporting on weather and climate. How accurate?

• The Airport Effect—cities growing up around once rural airports. Temperature readings for the entire region are taken there over decades.

• The layers of the atmosphere, their differing qualities, their effects.

• The jet stream, other wind patterns.

• Statistics: Do we have a large enough baseline of good weather statistics to be able to forecast really long-term climate changes? Is a century of weather readings good enough? Example of doubt about having a robust data baseline: We’ve only known about the existence of the jet stream since World War II.

• Modeling—what kinds of computer models do meteorologists use? Can they account for all of the above factors and more? Are they good enough for really long-term forecasting?

The one sure thing
Appreciate that Gore and the others in global warming is caused by humans group refuse to accept that the one word to explaing the Earth's climate is "change". The arrogance that we are totally responsible or that we should attempt to do something drastic about it borders on lunacy.

They believe that the earth's climate should stop changing. They don't like change except if they are directing the change.

Still this all has very little to do with climate and a lot to do with hating capitalism, the USA, and freedom. Global warming caused by humans is the ultimate big environmental issue that finally has a chance to bring the USA and the western world to its economic knees.

China's approach is that if the choice is between changing climate and economic progress, they will chose economic progress. Of course the Chinese culture has been around a few thousand years so they have a totally different perspective.

To summarize
We don't know if there is such a thing as global warming.

IF there is, we don't know if it is happening right now.

IF it is happening right now, we don't know if human activity is causing it.

IF human activity is causing it, we don't know if that's a BAD THING.

There's quite a bit of ignorance here. Way too much for us to bet trillions of dollars of our hard-earned money on very likely useless environmental regulations and forced changes in how we gather and use energy resources.

Bad news for Owlgore
Tuesday, 26th June 2007, 08:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALMOST three quarters of people believe global warming is a 'natural occurrence' and not a result of carbon emissions, a survey claimed today.

This goes against the views of the vast majority of scientists who believe the rise in the earth's temperatures is due to pollution.

The online study which polled nearly 4000 votes found that a staggering 71 percent of people think that the rise in air temperature happens naturally.

And 65 percent think that scientists' catastrophic predictions if pollution isn't curbed are 'far fetched'.

Emma Hardcastle, publisher at Pocket Issue which carried out the research, said: "If 71% of people feel that Man has nothing to do with the recent change in our climate then those same people are not going to buy into any movement to reduce their carbon footprint.

"We need to make it clear that there is nothing natural about the significant rise in both carbon emissions and global temperatures since the industrial revolution.

"Pocket Issue’s brief is to help people to understand the facts, encouraging them to click through to a carbon counter as a result.

"Pocket Issue feel that the poll highlights the need for government and influential bodies to concentrate on getting the public to understand the facts about global warming and ‘why’ rather than ‘how’ they should reduce their carbon footprint."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which represents most scientists, stated earlier that the increase in global temperatures is 'very likely due to the observed increase of man-made greenhouse gas concentrations'.

They define very likely as 'more than 90 percent certain'.

PV
Thanks for debunking Frey. Spot on. I'd add that the UK's reduction in emissions has been a result of the so-called "dash to gas" (replacing coal-fired energy with natural gas) that started under Thatcher, nearly 30 years ago -- in response to the economically injurious miners' strikes. Like France and Germany, the UK has presented an improved CO2 emissions profile without doing anything it wasn't already going to do, prior to signing the Kyoto protocol.

The nations of Western Europe have "reduced" CO2 emissions by converting from one modern energy source to another -- gas/coal to nuclear, coal to gas -- and not by literally consuming less energy. Congratulations to them. They have hardly proven the argument that dramatically reducing ENERGY use is harmless to economies -- since they haven't reduced energy use.

Notably, in fact, European CO2 emissions have been rising since Kyoto was signed in 1997, at a rate three times the rate of increase in US CO2 emissions. The sole reason that aggregate emissions by EU nations are today about 1% below their 1990 emissions is the closing of high-emitting coal-fired plants in former East Germany and the UK after 1990. Since Europe's emissions continue on the rise, however, none of the nations in question is on target to achieve its Kyoto goal of reducing emissions 8% below 1990 levels by the 2008-12 timeframe.

Silencing
dissenters is just another form of communism. For those that believe in global warming you have my sympathy. You must live your life daily in fear. What are you going to do when it paralyzes you?

YAWN!
Liberals demonizing those who disagree with them. OLD NEWS! Wake me when you find an Honest Liberal!

To Al Gore
Maybe Global Warming is caused by the Earth getting FLATTER :)!

PV
"RealClimate claims we can identify the human CO2 by the isotopes it contains. The one thing we know is that the 800 pound gorilla of CO2 is the oceans which make our efforts look paltry. CO2 is outgassed from the oceans during warm times while it is absorbed back into the ocean during cold times."

I'm thinking there's not much point in trying to explain the isotope ratios here, but it's available on the web to anyone who cares to look. The oceans are actually a net absorber of carbon (for now, at least). One little factoid I forgot to mention. For thousands of years before 1800, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was steady between 275 and 285 ppm. Then our 3% contribution comes along, and now it's at 383 ppm, and about 70 ppm of that rise was just in the last 50 years. You're pissing on my head and telling me it's rain.

"The 95%GHG effect attributed to water vapor is correct."

I gave a source for my figures. You got a source for yours?

"The sun has been more active in the last several decades than in the last 300 years. Its relative intensity is only part of the equation -the other is how it interacts with cosmic ray energy."

How it interacts with cosmic rays is a function of the solar wind, which is a function of the magnetic field, which is modified by sunspot occurence, which has been (as I mentioned) slightly decreasing in the last twenty years.

"Only two of the countries you named have actually reduced their emissions, UK and Sweden. France's so-called reductions are entirely from converting their energy plant to nuclear. Germany only shows a reduction because they shut down all the inefficient factories from East Germany at the end of the Cold War."

France did it by converting further to nuclear power. And we can't do that, why? And the terrorist angle won't wash. If France can handle the security, so can we.

As for Germany, they did get a benefit from that. But, at the time of reunification, West Germany had approximitely double the carbon emissions of East Germany, so 1/3 of the emissions were coming from the East, 2/3 from the West. So, to get a 17% reduction, the emissions from East Germany would have had to have been cut in half, and at the same time, the emissions from West Germany would have had to kept at 1990 levels for 16 years, while the economy was still growing. (CO2 numbers from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

"The claim that their economies grew faster than ours is complete nonsense. None of these economies even average 1% growth while the US is consistently above 3%."

Again, do you have an actual source for this? Because I gave sources for my numbers.

"The US has actually held the rate of emissions growth to just over 1% during the past 5 years while the EU has seen their rates grow by 5% ...."

The US has done a decent job, and the EU as a whole has not. But those four countries did an even better job, and if they can do it, why can't we?


dyerje
"The nations of Western Europe have "reduced" CO2 emissions by converting from one modern energy source to another -- gas/coal to nuclear, coal to gas -- and not by literally consuming less energy. Congratulations to them. They have hardly proven the argument that dramatically reducing ENERGY use is harmless to economies -- since they haven't reduced energy use."

So reducing energy use isn't necessary to cut carbon emissions. Thanks for making my point.

Climate should be static now?
I've been asking almost as long as this issue has been around, how & when & by whom exactly it was determined that the climate was now, since the early 20th Century, supposed to be static and unchanging absent human-induced warming? When did the sea level become constant? I live on a fossil beach at an elevation of 500' that was waterfront a half million yrs ago, & now everybody's panicked over the prospect of a sea level rise of a few inches. I'm fairly sure there were no SUVs or coal-fired electric power plants back then.

It is very easy to concoct a claim that a "consensus" of climate scientists favors the idea of anthrogenic carbon dioxide induced climate change, if the pool of credible qualified atmospheric scientists is arbitrarily cherry-picked to include only those who profess belief in "global warming."

Who is pushing the notion of a "scientific consensus" in favor of anthrogenic climate change theories in spite of nearly every point they make being refuted sooner or later? They pick on carbon dioxide because in doing so they give themselves a rationale for controlling everything the people do that generates carbon dioxide, which is to say, virtually everything people do. Government, pro-big-socialist-government-NGO's, and the United Nations that aspires to be the government of the world. The IPCC, a creature of the UN run by UN bureaucrats, has been caught red-handed at least twice already 'doctoring' the relatively conservative and cautious statements of the actual scientists by asubstituting scaremongering declarations concocted by the bureaucrats after the scientists have gone home.

The biggest danger in "Global Warming" is that it causes global totalitarianism. The logic of "global warming" theories leads directly to restrictive energy rationing and totalitarian centralized government, ultimately a de facto world government, to do it. That's why the elite class in and around government & international bodies push "global warming" regardless of whether it is demonstrated to be true, false, or exaggerated.

Not just a danger...
Hi Don't,

"The biggest danger in "Global Warming" is that it causes global totalitarianism. The logic of "global warming" theories leads directly to restrictive energy rationing and totalitarian centralized government, ultimately a de facto world government, to do it. That's why the elite class in and around government & international bodies push "global warming" regardless of whether it is demonstrated to be true, false, or exaggerated."

This is not just a danger, it's the Evil Leftist PLAN!

Global Warming is an extremely useful assertion to them. One of many good reasons to seriously doubt it.

And furthermore, they don't even care if it's true or not!!!

Frey
Only if you are prepared to agree that Europeans have not proven anything instructive for the United States about reducing CO2 emissions, have I proven "your" point.

European emissions have been rising at three times the rate of America's since 1997. We hardly want to copy anything Europe is doing.

And since we had no outdated coal-fired plants to close, like the ones from the Warsaw Pact era in East Germany, we don't have that option.

We had already "dashed to gas" long before the UK did. We have also much improved the emissions profile of coal-fired plants in the US, since 1965, and we continue to do so.

Even without building new nuclear reactors to replace gas-fired plants, as France has done, the US has avoided increasing emissions as fast as Western Europe has.

Want to try that one again? Europe is not going to meet its Kyoto goal, and in fact is further from doing so now than it was in 1997, after it benefitted from taking steps the US had already taken in the previous four decades. The Europeans didn't even catch up with us, in terms of energy modernity and emissions control, until the decade surrounding the Kyoto signing. All they have proven is that becoming as modern as America is a good thing.

China...
is now the largest emitter of anthropogenic carbon in the world. They will likely double their carbon emissions in the next decade. If they do so, and we reduce our carbon emissions to zero, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to rise. If the EU reduced its emissions to zero and India continued to increase its carbon emissions at the current rate, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to rise.

If AGW emissions are an issue, they are a global issue; and, if they require a solution, they require a global solution. Nothing on the table today represents a global solution. A "solution" without China and India is not a solution at all.

"A goal without a plan is just a wish.", Antoine de St. Exupery.

Does anybody know carbon parameters
Should not the most basic questions be addressed first?
How much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere?
How much of that is from human sources?
How much carbon dioxide is taken-up by plants?
How much carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere, after ALL natural (and man-made? reductions)?
At what levels (too high, too low) of atmospheric carbon dioxide are negative effects seen?

How can we adequately discuss carbon's effect on global warming without reasonably-accurate data for the above questions?
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.