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, May 07, 2007
Jason Mattera :: Townhall.com Columnist
Al Gore's willing accomplices in the classroom
by Jason Mattera
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?


Music icon Sheryl Crow just wrapped up her "Stop Global Warming College Tour." And while no Rhode Island school hosted her biodiesel bus, the pop singer's persistence on propagandizing young and malleable minds with greenhouse hype sure did resonate with the leftist faculty at Roger Williams University (RWU).

The week before Earth Day, professors teaching CORE 101: Science, Technology and Society broke from a normal day of classes to watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The eco-marching orders were handed down by the assistant dean of the science department, Jeffrey A. Hughes (contact info here).

On the surface, such an action doesn't sound off alarm bells. Shouldn't institutions of higher learning introduce students to a wide variety of ideas, even ones espoused by liberal politicians?

Perhaps. Students are cheated out of a real education if they don't wrestle with tough questions and if they are not exposed to controversial subjects.

But that's exactly what didn't happen at RWU. An Inconvenient Truth, and only An Inconvenient Truth, was shown by Hughes' cabal, as if that film were the authoritative voice on global warming. So, every core science section—12 in all—consisting of philosophy, political science, english, engineering, and psychology majors needing the class to graduate received only Gore's big government "solution" to climate change. (The same Al Gore who invented the Internet, won the 2000 presidential election, and just discovered he was a scientist.)

RWU junior Dana Peloso asked Assistant Dean Hughes, "with the scientific community unsure if global warming is man induced or part of the natural cycle of the earth, do you think that it is intellectually honest to show only the alarmist viewpoint? If the movie is still shown, what plans are there to incorporate the ideas of leading global warming skeptics into class discussion?"

The answer: none.

In his response—obtained exclusively by Young America's Foundation—Jeffrey Hughes claimed that "scientists no longer question whether the atmosphere is being warmed due to human activities and instead are increasingly impressed with the speed and impact of the process. I repeat: there is no doubt that we're warming the earth and that a continuation of our activities will lead to profound changes."

Case closed! End of discussion! No more debate! Science—or should I say the Left—has spoken!

Well, if it were only that simple. A person of Jeffrey Hughes' stature should know that science is not about consensus; it's about truth. If consensus were the last word, history textbooks would still teach that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat.

Few question that the planet has warmed over the last century—around one degree Fahrenheit—but it's a bold-faced lie for Assistant Dean Hughes to argue that all scientists agree to its cause. Prominent academics and scientists have poked gigantic holes in the belief that man is largely responsible for heating up the planet.

Take Bjorn Lomborg—author of Skeptical Environmentalist and named by TIME magazine as one of the most influential people of 2004—and Richard Lindzen—professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology—as two examples among many.

Both men identify the current warming period as a normal, planetary phase. During the Medieval period, for instance, the earth was likely as warm as or warmer than the present. From the 1940s to the 1970s, the earth underwent another cycle, this time cooling the planet, sparking fears of a coming ice age. And what about the fact that 97% of carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere originates—not from man—but from oceans, swamps, plants and other natural means? Or the fact that temperatures dropped during the post-World War II period when man-made carbon dioxide emissions dramatically increased?

While Jeffrey Hughes doesn't light a candle intellectually to Lomborg or Lindzen, their voices were muted and their data suppressed in RWU's classroom because skeptical views regarding global warming don't fit the Left's prevailing dogma.

The Roger Williams University Assistant Dean pressed on with his defense: "As educators, we're charged to encourage your intellectual growth. That can (actually, will) be uncomfortable at times, and we're also here to help you deal with that discomfort."

What would we mindless knaves ever do without our anointed professors to lead us by the hand? Dana Peloso pleaded for balance; Jeffrey Hughes thrust arrogance and condescension upon him instead.

"Penguins, polar bears, and your unborn children have no vote in this, they must live with decisions we make today," continued Hughes, as if the Left has ever been concerned with lives of unborn children. "So, given what you now know, what do you think we should do for the long-range health of our planet and our future? I hope watching An Inconvenient Truth leaves you more comfortable with your answer and the necessary compromises that must be made."

Ah, yes, those "necessary compromises" the Left seeks to impose on a free people: what we drive; the light bulbs we use; the length of time our air conditioners run; the amount of gasoline we consume; the land we cultivate; the technology we produce, and even the sheets of toilet paper we'd be allotted for bathroom visits.

Roger Williams University bills itself as a place that values "collaboration of students and faculty in research" and "appreciation of global perspectives," two core principles that Jeffrey Hughes dismissed entirely. He neither invited students to offer input nor did he welcome "global perspectives" on climate change. He also scoffed at the school's insistence to train students to "advocate effectively through civil discourse" and to "acquire new information and perspectives." Hughes limited classroom information and he reproached a student who sought to hear an alternative view on a hotly contested subject.

As an assistant dean and as a professor, Jeffrey Hughes violated the very mission of Roger Williams University, which means that the school's president, Roy Nirschel, has every right to take action against him. Like a good leftist "academic," Hughes found it more satisfying to enlist as a Gore mouthpiece than to act as a responsible educator.

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

Jason Mattera is the Spokesman for Young America's Foundation.

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

Vic
You are right about the lows, but the low temperature mainly comes from a pooling effect of the surrounding terrain, mountain range NW and Continental Divide NE. Same thing happens in Alamosa Colorado. The cold air just flows down to the lower terrain.
Santa Fe is higher than Gallup but hardly ever gets as cold, again it seems to be the difference in terrain.

Spent 2 long years in Gallup.

I'll take a shot at it.
I would have to say that Gallup is 1000 ft higher in elevation is the primary reason. Other reasons:

1. Albuquerque is less arid than Gallup therefore Gallup will have wider temperature swings, both high and low.

2. Albuquerque is a much larger metropolitan area and experiences the "heat island" effect.

John Cook
The link you quoted from NOAA in simply a summary by that person, and to quote a part of it "
Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural
sites, but The link you quoted from NOAA in simply a summary by that person, and to quote a part of it "
Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural
sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial
regions."

He ignores the point I made earlier, many of the official observations used are made at or near airports, not near "park cool islands"

Additionally he admits "All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature observations suffer from
inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can
lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation,
instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data"

better known as fudge factor, adjust the evidence to meet the criteria.

For the weather geniuses, explain why Gallup NM routinely gets below 0F during the winter, while Albuquerque NM seldom gets below 20 F. (Cannot be explained by altitude alone)

One more thing
Is the evidence of the last 30 years a long enough period of time to model the climate of the Earth which is something like 6 billion years old? I think you've committed a statistical error there because thats an awfully small sample, not randomly selected over the billions of years of Earth's existence.

John Cook
Why were all the climate changes in the past natural and now it isn't?

In other words(yours) try looking at long term trends in order filter out the chaotic noise.


John Cook
Did you miss the movie?
This proves beyond any doubt that man made global warming is a farce.
http://www.rightalk.com

This is the reason for the farce.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200703/NAT20070330a.html

To dollface
To give the impression that global warming advocates deny climate changes naturally is erroneous. In all my research, I've never observed this - quite the opposite. All those times in history when things were warmer or colder - that's perfectly natural and is irrelevant to the situation of global warming today.

The difference between climate change in the past and now is the current, unprecedented rate of warming (and that it's human forced). To get an idea of how current warming compares with the past, check out this summary of all studies reconstructing temperatures over the past 2000 years, including the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png). The current temperature (as of 2004) is the black line.

Lastly, on the subject of predicting the weather, weather is chaotic and difficult to predict by nature. Climate is weather averaged out over time. Eg - we look at long term trends in order to filter out the chaotic noise.

Climate "Science"
John Cook, explain this to me. If these scientific models are so accurate at predicting the climate a century from now, how come the weatherman(meteorologist) can't tell me with any degree of accuracy whether its going to rain tomorrow or not? Remember, garbage in, garbage out.

Medieval Warm Period
The Little Ice Age was approximately from 1300 to 1800 with its peak being in the 1500's and 1600's. The Medieval Warm Period was from about 800 to 1300. Before that was a colder period we call the Dark Ages or Early Medieval Period/Late Antiquity from about 300 to 800. Guess what? Before that was another warm period coinciding with the height of ancient civilization from about 200BC to 300AD.(or to be politically correct for you libs, 200BCE and 300CE).

Do we have temperature records? No, they didn't have thermometers. But there is lots and lots of evidence for this to be true. There are historical records. We can look at the names people gave to things. We can look at archaelogical evidence. We can look at tree rings and ice core samples. We don't know that this is the hottest the earth has ever been and never will know. But we do know that:

1. Around 200BC the Carthagenian general Hannibal brought his war elephants through the alpine passes in late winter/early spring for the summer campaign in Italy. I guess the passes weren't clogged with snow that year.

2. In the Third Century tribes began moving from lands north of the Roman Empire to lands to their south in the Roman Empire. Many of them, like the Goths, were farmers. When their crops failed due to colder weather, they moved south or were pushed south by more northerly tribes also moving south. These tribes included Goths, Franks, Vandals, Saxons, Huns, Lombards and others who give their name to such places as England, France, etc..

3. In England there is a fungus called St. George's Mushroom. It is called that because it used to bloom on or about St. George's Day(April 22). In recent years its bloomed in late April as its name suggests it should. In recent centuries its bloomed as late as mid-May. This suggests that our climate is now approximating the climate that existed when it was named.

4. Greenland used to be green. The Viking farms on Greenland have been excavated now that some of the ice has receded.

5. More Viking stuff. They had a colony on the Labrador Coast near Goose Bay. Again, archaelogical evidence suggests that they grew grapes and made wine(hence the name Vinland) in an area much further north than upstate New York which is the limit of grape cultivation today. Gee, it must've been warmer then.

6. Evidence of colder weather during the Little Ice Age abound. We have references to the cold winters at Valley Forge and the retreat of Napoleon from Moscow. The Thames River at London used to freeze over for extended periods of time.

7. Our school calendar also provides evidence of this cyclical nature of the climate. In the 1800's when public schools were established in largely rural America, they began their year in September after the harvest was in. Tell me why the Harvest Moon is in October?

The global warming fanatics are preaching the same doomsday nonsense as all the other chicken littles who have preceeded them. Only this time, with the help of leftist ideology and a poorly educated mainstream media that has global reach, they are able to reach millions more uninformed people. There is only one reason this natural climate cycle is a political issue: It gives big government totalitarians an opportunity to control more and more of people's lives.

To...well, everyone
To Vic & beowulfe, re the Hockey Stick graph. It surprises me that people still bring up the whole debunking of Mann's hockey stick. Regardless of whether the debunking is valid or not, since then there have been multiple studies by different teams employing different methods (studying corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc) that have come to the same conclusion: each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. It's time to move on from the Hockey Stick.

Packrat, you're refering to the Urban Heat Island effect. The NCDC have studied this and concluded "No Difference Found" (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/population/article2abstract.pdf). Temperature trends are observed to be the same in urban or rural areas. Peer reviewed studies show no impact of the UHI effect on trends. Conversely, there are no quantified or peer reviewed studies demonstrating otherwise. There's a great article on this at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

beowulfe: "How do you explain away the first half of the 20th century warmed at a faster pace". I would again direct you to http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png which shows how current climate models (the same ones that conclude that man made emissions force global warming) project temperature changes over the past century. The model factors in all forcings including increasing CO2, decreasing sulfates and solar irradience which was observed to rise in the early 20th century. Measurements of solar irradience produced by the Max Plank Institute http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/ show irradience increasing in the early 20th century as temperature increases. The solar irradience levels out mid-century while the temperature jumps up again around the 1980's. Just like mid-century cooling, early century warming only serves to validate the climate models even further.

Beowulfe: how to explain there hasn't been any increase since 1998? 1998 was an unusually hot year because, according to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html), it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. Climate change is concerned with long term trends - that's the only way to filter out the noise of weather which is chaotic by nature. Viewing the CRU's graph of temperature over the past century (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) shows the trend clearly hasn't reversed and 1998 is an anomaly.

Beowulfe: why isn't the southern hemisphere warming as much? This is well understood by climate models. Greenhouse gas forcing has a greater effect over land as the ocean can absorb more heat. Globally, there's a disproportionate amount of land in the Northern Hemisphere. There are other factors such as ocean dynamics and Arctic polar amplification but the whole land/ocean factor is the dominant one.

Thanks to everyone (particularly the prolific Beowulfe) for the responses. It's great to see actual science being discussed rather than just political rhetoric. I would strongly recommend you don't take my arguments (or skeptic ones) at face value. Follow the links - many of the pages I refer to (particularly the globalwarmingart.com pages) feature links to the original peer reviewed studies and data. Whether global warming is man made or not is a scientific question so make sure the science you quote is qualified, quantified and gone through the peer reviewed process.

Everytime
Sheryl Crow opens her mouth I know why Lance Armstrong dumped her.

To Adamz
Not true;

You can't show that it is a hoax unless you show what they have said and why it is false.

Fairness is the issue
Adamz,

Your question should be;

"Would the issue have surfaced Hughes had presented a fair and balanced perspective on the environment and the human experience?"

Thing is, most of the media ignores the reality, that, contextually, global warming is really about money and power, markets and social engineering. Given the audience Hughes enjoyed, he was TERRIBLY remiss to bring this most ignored, but most salient, aspect of global warming to the classroom.

In simplest terms, the global warming context is a fraud.

Fairness is not the issue
Come on now, this article was written to complain that only one side of an issue was being put forward in this classroom. The reason all of you are upset is not that only one side was reported, but that the side that was reported was not YOUR side. If the professor in question had chosen to only show one of the "Global Warming=Hoax" documentaries some of you have mentioned, the article and these comments would be full of praise for the professor for having the guts to stand up to the "liberal establishment" and show the "truth". If that was the case, how many of you would be posting here demanding that in the interest of "fairness" the professor must also show "An Inconvenient Truth" to make sure that the students get both sides of the story?

It's not about "earth science"
Global warming has never been about earth science -- it's about bolstering conditions and restrictions to ensure the rich and well-established can retain control as the economy diversifies or expands. Why else would oil companies, the World Bank, the UN and leftists embrace questionable green theology as fact? Given the World Bank has generally created scandal throughout the Third World, what credible person could believe their environmental dogma?

Hang onto your wallets and purses! The Al Gores of the world are coming to tear them out of your grasp for their own collective, elitist sakes.

Do like the Afgans
I understand that in the deserts of Afghanistan they don't even use paper, just wipe it on the left hand and then wipe hand in the sand.

my leader Sheryl
I will leave my republican blood and defer to the annointed left if Sheryl Crow will personally show me how to wipe my a** with 1 piece of toilet paper. Obviously Ms. Crow and I have different types of bowel movements and have a different perspective on what finished means!!!!

Liberals always use the students
Why do you think liberal groups target college campuses? A basic article of faith for liberals is using college students as foot soldiers -- cannon fodder -- because your typical, 18- to 22-year-old college student is still very much an adolescent. Adolescents don't reason very well -- they think they do, but they don't -- they are much better at "feeling" a certain way and then building a skeleton of "reason" to justify their emotionally-based conclusions. So someone tells them the ice caps are melting and shows them pictures of swimming polar bears and their "mind" says "awww . . . lookit poor baby polar bears . . . and it's all my fault . . . no, wait, my mother's fault . . . for driving me to soccer games in a big SUV!" As one grows older and the mind develops a little bit more -- hopefully gains a little real-world experience along the way -- it is much harder to swing the average person's viewpoint with hype and nonsense. (Unless you're a Hollywood celebrity -- but their whole lives are based on fantasy and emotional response.)

Al Gore Scam
I too have studied the science and don't see the causation some talk about. As some have said if you want to adopt certain practices to save energy and money and help the environment go for it. But this AGW nonsence is just a ploy to increase government(especially Democratic liberal) control over our lives to lead us closer to more socialism both economically and politically. This fiction and many other beliefs of the left has gone on too long. Hopefully the recent presidential election in France signals a change for the better in western thought.

Alumni, fight back with your checkbooks!
That is, stop making donations to your alma mater, when this Socialist groupthink goes unchallenged.

If we cut off the funds, that gets the attention of the smary, snivelling admins who look the other way or encourage the perversion of free inquiry that the Socialists have carried out.

Hillary delenda est.

Shut Up!! The Left has spoken
Jason:

You are on target, but the problem is with the Left speaking in public schools. Today's little brainwashed elementary students are already out of touch with reality before they will ever step foot on a college campus. The only way to save America is to go to a national voucher system and allow parents to shop around for schools. Get rid of the goverenment mandates, and educate instead of brainwash and America will turn around. The hard Left dies in the light of relavant education.

RR

Link don't light up.
That is a valid link.
It is about Crow's goofy idea of saving the world by rationing TOILET PAPER!

Riders of the AGW band wagon.
If any of you find Sheryl Crow sober, please inform her that besides generating the same amount of CO2 as regular diesel, her Biodiesel bus also generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide.
Yes that is Laughing Gas and probably accounts for this;
http:www.liberalwhiners.com/print.php?a=1218

That Nitrous Oxide also condenses with moisture to create ACID RAIN!
I do wish some of these DoGooders would stop trying to save the Earth with Ethanol, Biodiesel, MTBE, etc. We have to live in the messes they make!

The real solution to global warming
One really big volcano exploding like Mount St Helens except stronger.

Check your history about the weather after Krakatoa

Global climate
In the year following the eruption, average global temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888[citation needed]. The eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus cloud. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) would reflect more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cool the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[5]

Oh heck, here the entire link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa

Global Warming quote of the week:
"Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide." - From an interview with Dr. Reid A. Bryson (http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html)

RE: John Cook
""During the Medieval period, the earth was likely as warm as now" - not true. There have been around a dozen proxy studies comparing temperatures over the past 1000 years. All of them come to the same conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. Check out a summary of all the studies at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"

1) The Medieval warm period occured more than 1000 years ago, kiddo.
2) You're referring to a DEBUNKED study concocted by Michael Mann. The National Academy of Sciences themselves were responsible for this thorough debunking. The NAS claimed that while we are fairly certain about the temperatures for the past 400 years, prior to that there is increasing doubt of the accuracy of the proxy data prior to that, and that they are so dubious in their accuracy that they cannot be relied upon at all. Instead one must look to history books to find that while we don't know exact temperatures prior to 400 years ago, we do know, as a matter of irrefutable, undeniable fact that the climate WAS warmer during the Medieval period seeing as how vikings were living and farming in areas of Greenland that are, to this very day, still uninhabitable.

Further, the NAS merely reiterated what we already knew: all available evidence suggests that the Medieval warm period was FAR warmer than it is now, that there was the "little ice age" that lasted until about 1300, and has been warming ever since, hence the reason why its warmer today than 1000 years ago: WE WERE IN THE MIDST OF AN ICE AGE 1000 YEARS AGO!

""97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide originates from natural means" - not true. Natural CO2 levels have fluctuated over the years, sometimes even as far as 100ppm. However, these kind of natural changes take 5,000 to 20,000 years. In contrast, the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years! Check out this graph of CO2 levels over the last 20,000 years and try to conclude that current CO2 levels are a natural change: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm."

Sorry, but this isn't the first time, nor the last time, CO2 levels change. The NAS also says the proxy data for CO2 that long ago are no more accurate than the temperature proxy data. Oh, and you link doesn't even work anyhow.

""Temperatures dropped during post-World War II period when carbon dioxide emissions increased" - what we observe in the mid-century fits with standard climate models. CO2 causes warming but aerosol pollution causes cooling - rises in pollution over the 40's/50's had more of an effect on climate than the CO2 (which was less than present day levels). In the 60's/70's, pollution regulations reduced aerosol emissions while CO2 levels increased. For a visual demonstration of what I'm talking about, check out http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png"

How do you explain away the fact that the first half of the 20th century warmed at a faster pace as it did in the second half, and that there hasn't been any increase since 1998? How do you explain away that these trends EXACTLY follow solar activity over the past century?

""Mars and all the planets are warming" - regarding Mars, the only actual evidence for this is photos of the Mars south polar caps over a 6 year period. All this demonstrates is melting in one region - hardly evidence for global warming. The other often quoted warming is Pluto where two observations 14 years apart have observed a difference in atmospheric thickness (which indicates warming). Considering Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years, this says nothing about climate change. It's like saying Earth is warming when comparing winter to summer. Lastly, if there was some solar system wide warming, this would imply the sun is causing the warming. However, measurements of solar irradience has been steady since 1940 - http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/"

Oh, the irony. Why, then, don't you ever mention that the southern hemisphere of Earth hasn't experienced the same warming as the northern hemisphere? Are you willing to claim that your "regional warming" also applies here, too, or only on Mars?

"Contrast that with the scientific literature today. Science magazine did a survey of the 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 on the topic of climate change. 75% agreed with the consensus position (that global warming is man made), 25% took no position (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate) and not a single study disagreed with the consensus position."

And a careful analysis of that study found it was bunk because they were searching for the terms "global warming" and any article that had those two words in them, regardless of what was the ACTUAL subject matter, was claimed to "support the consensus position". Why don't you bring up the FACT that Science magazine refuses to print anything not towing its political agenda, like, for example, the results of a survey by Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germany that found only 9.4% of scientists in the field of climatology 'strongly agree' that climate change is mostly due to human activity?

"The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that came out this year is even more compelling. It's a compilation of studies by 800 scientists and reviewed by over 2500 climate experts - it concludes that global warming is "unequivocal" and it's more than 90% likely caused by humans."

Actually, you got duped by the "Summary for Policy Makers", which was not written by any of the scientists on the panel. Practically every single prediction that was made in the 3rd report has actually been reduced. Add that to the fact that the IPCC is bleeding scientists as more and more real scientists realize the IPCC is NOT a scientific body, but instead political institution pushing a certain agenda, and is simply using the scientists -- distorting their research in doing so -- to push said agenda.

"So global cooling predictions in the 70's amounted to a couple of studies and largely media hype. Today, there's an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70's to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading."

And repeating your "consensus" lie doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Ice age, warming,ice age,warming
I remember the global ice age scare of the 70's. the leftist "cure" for the coming global cooling disaster was the exact same "cure" they are peddling today. "Give us control of every aspect of commerce, industry and personal comsumption. We will save you ignorant masses from your own stupidity"

It is about Power, Control, and a Messianic "Save the World" complex. They want to be relevant and important. It is a substitute religion and nothing more

Any Lib who can face facts?
This documentary was produced by scientists who are acknowledged to be the World's formost authorities on Global Climate.
http://www.rightalk.com

I do not expect any Lib has the courage to watch it and see his AGW god exposed as a HOAX!

For Libs I will give a quick bottom line.
It proves that the rise in CO2 comes LONG after the rise in temperature and therefore is an affect of and not a cause of the warming.
___________________________________________
Don't worry guys.
This won't frighten away all of our Moonbats.
They will just cower away from the movie like a cross held up to a Vampire.

CROW IQ
Any imbecile, including Sheryl with the IQ of a crow, likes to repeat someone's "truths".
NOW:
nobody in a city with a temp. swing of 120 degrees - minus 20 to plus 100 - can notice a rise of a 1/2 degree. Any swing...
AfterRussia colapse, many northern temp. stations got closed, and the average temperature went up STATISTICALLY; ON PAPER ONLY!!!!!
THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And top that with plus/minus 10 or more degree temp. estimates BC.......

One more piece of data
How do we know the Earth is warming?

By increased temperature being reported . Right?

Q. Where are most reporting stations for actual temperature?
A.. At airports and/or cities.

Q What do cities and airports having in common?
A. Lots of concrete and asphalt.

Q. Could this skew the readings?
A. What do you think?

PS Any one who wants to use infra-red satellite photo should be aware of problems with absolute accuracy. You can not always tell the difference between low level clouds (fog) and the ground, especially at night.

John Cook
Don't you think we went too far in the '70s, overcleaning the air and thereby causing this global warming?

As malleable as the climate is, couldn't we institute a system whereby the various polluting industries that installed pollution control devices could simply turn the devices on and off as needed in order to reintroduce the cooling pollution to the atmosphere? Certainly there might be an adverse effect on a few people with breathing problems, but isn't it worth it to save our planet?

I have actually heard of proposals to purposely release pollution into our atmosphere to cool us off, but it seems to me that before we begin the expensive process of sending planes up to spew pollution we should at least give coal-fired plants a chance.

To John Cook
Do a TH search on Global Warming. You will find numerous links to all of the above. I have not saved all of it. We have pretty much documented the entire scam here at TH in the comments.

What I was referring to the data being left out is in the original UN Panel's Hockey Stick graph. Note that the UN has now dropped the Hockey Stick graph.

The K-factor thing came from a meteorologist who documented how they calculated the so-called average global temperature. The link is back in all that history.

And you missed the point that most of this century’s temperature increase occurred BEFORE the CO2 increase.

Further more; in true science correlation is not causation. Not only that but the CO2 can not be correlated because the temperature increase comes AFTER the CO2 increase.

To Vic
Vic, not sure what you mean by the Medieval Warm period being left out of the original data as that period appears in the 1000 year graph I was looking at:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

But just to be thorough and get a wider context, you might want to look at a 2000 year graph:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

If you could provide links to more info on this peer reviewer question and K-factors, that would be helpful. Or any data suggesting the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. Not that it's particularly relevant - even if the MWP was warmer than current temperatures, the main point about global warming today is the *rate* of temperature increase is unprecedented and that it's forced by man-made CO2.

As for rises and falls in temperatures throughout this century, climatologists are not saying CO2 is the only factor controlling temperatures. There are other influences such as aerosols that can have a cooling effect (by reflecting sunlight). For example, in the 90's, Mount Pinatubo erupted ejecting large amounts of SO2 in the air. There was a sharp drop in temperature for several years as the CO2 forcing was temporarily overwhelmed by the forcing from the volcanic SO2 in the atmosphere - http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

Similarly, aerosol pollution in the 40's/50's had more effect than CO2. In the 60's/70's, pollution regulations reduced aerosol emissions while CO2 levels have continued to increase. Have another close look at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png - notice the grey area behind the observed temperature change? These is the projected temperatures the climate models produce when factoring in CO2, solar, ozone, volcanic and sulfate forcings. Rather than disproving global warming, mid-century cooling is a good way to show the effectiveness of climate models.

To John Cook
We have already looked at all of this data. Isn't it strange that the Medieval Warm period was left out of the original data? When questioned by one of the "peer reviewers" the people compiling the data blew off the review and released it anyway...so much for peer review. Also, when originally released the Medieval Warm period WAS warmer than what it is now. First the advocates tried to explain this away as a local phenomena, but when presented with evidence to the contrary, they then changed the "K-factors" for the measured temperatures to make it warmer now. In addition, the increase in temperatures this century occurred during the first half of the century, while the major increase in CO2 occurred in the last half. Looking at ancient data, the increases in temperature also do not correlate to the increase in temperature. The CO2 increase comes AFTER the temperature increase. In short, the increases in CO2 do not correlate to the increase in temperature. Just how many ways to falsify and misread data will you accept before you realize that it is a scam?

Advocating voluntary conservation and less extravagant lifestyles is fine for the "environment’s sake, but don't try to force and economic collapse on us or introduce huge new taxes just for the sake of some phony scam to transfer money from the U.S. to 3rd world countries and demagogues like Albore.

AlGor the elder
Don't forget, too, that AlGor the elder sold his senate votes to Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum for the millions of dollars worth of Occidental Petroleum shares which forms the bulk of the family's wealth. Is it any coincidence that AlGor the younger was Vice-President when they sold the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve to Occidental nearly 70 years to the day after Harry Sinclair tried to buy it during the Teapot Dome scandal?

Of course, AlGor wouldn't profit from that.(This was also the only drilling permits approved by the Clinton/AlGor administration). After all, Occidental makes gasoline which goes into gas guzzling carbon spewing SUV's.

On a related note, Bill Clinton placed southern Utah's low sulphur coal off-limits by making a National Monument out of it. This made FOB Mochtar Riady's low sulphur coal reserves in the pristine rain forest of Borneo the world's largest exploitable reserves. One hypocrite hanging out with another.

A look at the science in this article
It seems that many people are fixated on Al Gore and forget that the question of global warming is a matter of science. If you're skeptical that global warming is human caused, your reasons should be scientific, not out of political distaste for liberals or Al Gore. Some of the science presented here:

"During the Medieval period, the earth was likely as warm as now" - not true. There have been around a dozen proxy studies comparing temperatures over the past 1000 years. All of them come to the same conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. Check out a summary of all the studies at http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

"97% of atmospheric carbon dioxide originates from natural means" - not true. Natural CO2 levels have fluctuated over the years, sometimes even as far as 100ppm. However, these kind of natural changes take 5,000 to 20,000 years. In contrast, the recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years! Check out this graph of CO2 levels over the last 20,000 years and try to conclude that current CO2 levels are a natural change: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm.

Additionally, scientists have analyzed the isotopes of the carbon and oxygen atoms making up atmospheric CO2. What they have found via the isotope signatures can be thought of as "old" carbon, which could only come from fossil fuel deposits, combined with "young" oxygen, as is found in the air all around us. So fossil fuel burning is the major source of the CO2 currently accumulating.

"Temperatures dropped during post-World War II period when carbon dioxide emissions increased" - what we observe in the mid-century fits with standard climate models. CO2 causes warming but aerosol pollution causes cooling - rises in pollution over the 40's/50's had more of an effect on climate than the CO2 (which was less than present day levels). In the 60's/70's, pollution regulations reduced aerosol emissions while CO2 levels increased. For a visual demonstration of what I'm talking about, check out http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png

"Mars and all the planets are warming" - regarding Mars, the only actual evidence for this is photos of the Mars south polar caps over a 6 year period. All this demonstrates is melting in one region - hardly evidence for global warming. The other often quoted warming is Pluto where two observations 14 years apart have observed a difference in atmospheric thickness (which indicates warming). Considering Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years, this says nothing about climate change. It's like saying Earth is warming when comparing winter to summer. Lastly, if there was some solar system wide warming, this would imply the sun is causing the warming. However, measurements of solar irradience has been steady since 1940 - http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

"Mid-century cooling sparked fears of a coming ice age in the 70's" - It's useful to look at exactly who predicted global cooling back in the 70's. Most of it was the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic). As far as any actual scientific research, there were several actual studies on the subject of global cooling. The definitive study on the subject was by the US National Academy of Sciences. It's basic conclusion was 'need more understanding before we can predict climate'. One study by JD Hays published in Science predicted the climate would cool over 20,000 years due to variations in the earth's orbit. Notably, it predicts cooling "in the absence of human perturbation of the climate system". The only study that seems to make any kind of imminent ice age prediction is a study by Rasool and Schneider published in Science that predicted if aerosol levels increased 6 to 8 fold, it could trigger an ice age.

Contrast that with the scientific literature today. Science magazine did a survey of the 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 on the topic of climate change. 75% agreed with the consensus position (that global warming is man made), 25% took no position (eg - focused on methods or paleoclimate) and not a single study disagreed with the consensus position. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that came out this year is even more compelling. It's a compilation of studies by 800 scientists and reviewed by over 2500 climate experts - it concludes that global warming is "unequivocal" and it's more than 90% likely caused by humans.

So global cooling predictions in the 70's amounted to a couple of studies and largely media hype. Today, there's an avalanche of studies and overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70's to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading.

A useful tool
Com'on guys, the left doesn't believe algore, they use him.

algore is like a crescent wrench, a tool to use in their fight for total power.

What is really amazing is that
there are still idiots out there that actually believe this scam. It has been shown that data was intentionally falsified and that Albore stands to profit financially from the Kyoto Treaty if ever ratified.

Also, the countries who pushed Kyoto through stood to benefit financially and the intent of the treaty was to punish and impede the economies of the Western world, primarily the US.

But what really jerks my chain is that ALL of the so-called major Republican candidates have also jumped on this scam.

scientific, not
scientic!

It is worth mentioning that Al Gore
also "just happens" to own the company that is selling carbon offsets. Just another aspect of his hypocrisy. If he really cared about "re-treeing" the planet, WHY would he charge people and make a profit off it at the same time?

Second, I did receive a pleasant email response from Professor Hughes (link in column above.)
He will entertain other "credible and current" global warming sources to "allow" his students and faculty the opportunity to hear both sides.
Send him some links! I had to laugh when he implied that he considered An Inconvenient Truth to be credible, at least in scientic method/evaluation/theory.

Trying again...
Look, before you critique things you read, make sure you've read them. I wasn't talking about NOW. I was talking about a few decades from now. And it's not so much that we are responsible for feeding the world. It's a moral issue. If growing ethanol means eliminating food exports, is it moral that the ethanol is used in inefficient vehicles or to support an energy intensive development pattern? Maybe you don't think so, but then don't let me catch you posting elsewhere on this site about morality, or "godless" liberals.

Oil and gas (and coal) are so unbelieveably rich sources of energy, chemicals, and materials, it is possible that we will be unable to replace them as they deplete. Maybe you think that that isn't a problem, in which case you are a fool. Maybe you think that there is a problem, but that "technology" or "capitalism" will save us, in which case you may or may not be a fool, but you are naive.

The point is that "conservatives," as they are represented in the popular consciousness these days, are overwhelmingly and willingly closing their eyes to the real possibility that we are creating huge problems for future generations with respect to resources and the environment. All that matters is gratification in the present. Government is so evil that it has no place to be a representative of the people's desire to preserve and protect resources. Teddy Roosevelt, I guess, is satan to you.

So-called "conservatives" need to introduce "entropy" to their vocabulary. I consider myself a conservative, but to me that means leaving a world for my child that's at least as good as the world I inherited. To many people here, apparently, the philosophy is more like "have fun now, let someone else pay later."

No offense.

I don't think you read closely enough.
.

Millions are starving because of America
Wow, Monty. Climate change isn't the only topic you know nothing about.

But you certainly prove the twin hypotheses that liberals believe Man (especially those "greedy" American capitalist men) has screwed up a perfectly tranquil, balanced earth to satisfy his lust for power and domination and we'd all be better off if the kind, benevolent, government ran our lives for us.

Ha hah...too funny
I don't know anything about climate change. I don't know if it's real or (assuming it is) whether mankind is causing some or all of it.

But it's high-larious how "conservatives", especially the ones here, apparently, are fond of concluding that man has no impact on climate; therefore, man can do whatever he pleases. A good example of this is the idea that resources are infinite. You know the reasoning. If one resource gets too expensive (because demand overwhelms supply, well, then some other resource will just take its place). Of course, in reality, that's just about the stupidest thing anyone has ever heard. Just because some resources can be replaced doesn't mean that all of them can.

That's why the horror of the next few decades will be mitigated by the sheer laugh-a-minute entertainment provided by former "conservatives" sputtering to explain how, gee, it looks like there will be no meaningful substitute for all that oil and natural gas we blew through living the high life back there at the turn of the century. Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if the government had stepped in and enforced, or at least encouraged, conservation before TSHTF? Isn't it too bad that millions of people around the world are starving now that America uses its last remaining farmland for ethanol rather than export grain? Oh well!

Just curious......
Does anybody know if Al Gore's papa (Al Gore Sr.) was as much of a moonbat as junior appears to be?

For charleston
You did know that Boregore is a plagiarist?

His climatological work (actual): two natural science courses in college with grades of C- and D+

I looked at a copy of "Earth In The Balance" in a Calgary "Cole's" in 1995, alongside copies of "Lost In The Barrens" and its sequel "Curse Of The Viking Grave" by Farley Mowat in 1950's, and noted rather strange similarities both of ideas and style--which could only mean that Gore plagiarised from Mowat (nice, since Mowat is generally banned entry due to Commie sympathies, and can't file a lawsuit in US).

It's the sun, stupid
All the planets are warming. The news is all over cosmology and the internet but did not make its way into Al Gore's movie or almost anyone else' hysteria. Mars is warming and losing its polar ice caps. Venus is getting hotter. Saturn and its moons and Jupiter and its moons are warmer. Jupiter has developed a new red spot, which some cosmologists think means climate change on the big guy. Even Pluto, with no atmosphere, no landrovers, no SUVs, and no coal plants, and now moving away from the sun in its orbit, is also warming. The Earth has been much warmer than it is now. In the Middle Ages in Europe, during the 100 Years War, snow was a rarity. During the Cretaceas period, we had no polar ice caps, sea levels were 400 feet higher, we prob. had no ozone layer, and it didn't bother us because we weren't here, and the dinosaurs that were thrived. They also didn't have liberals or Al Gores to contend with and couldn't appreciate their pure existence as they went through life merely bashing and eating each other for eons.

Charleston II
Also, don't dis AlGor's lifestyle. It takes a lot of energy to save the world.

Charleston
Who are we mere mortals to question the wisdom of AlGor, soldier, statesman, scientist, engineer, noted filmmaker, journalist and man of letters.

Jeffery
Don't forget those little Mars Rovers we sent up there. I'm sure they're responsible.

What's truly amazing is the lack...
... of real basis to the so-called "settled" science.

CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas. The physics involved are unexceptionable. However, even doubling CO2 only results in a "direct" warming of 1.2 degrees C. The rest of the frequently quoted warming--60% of the warming predicted by those famous computer models--comes from a positive feedback effect from more water vapor in a warmer atmosphere. This feedback is ASSUMED TO BE PRESENT. Now, has anybody CHECKED whether this positive feedback really exists? Uhm...as far as I can tell, not really. I saw a paper on the first satellite measurements on this assumed positive feedback. I think it was published in Journal of Geophysical Research (a peer-reviewed journal). This paper was published in 2002, if you please. A critical parameter--and the first time it was measured was 14 years into the global warming scare? As I recall, the value arrived at for this critical "forcing" was 1/7 of the value ASSUMED by the IPCC.

As soon as I read that paper and realized the implications of it, I moved firmly into the sceptical camp.

RE: MARS IS WARMING, TOO
oneeye wrote:

"Mars is warming up. too" ...

While you are correct that Mars is warming and their are no known SUVs on the planet, is it a coincidence the observed warming of the Red Planet happened soon after man-made probes began landing on Mars?

I think not. The only possible conclusion: Human activities are also responsible for Martian climate change!

Mr. Mattera,
Superb article! Thank you for exposing another one of these college professors, who seemingly has determined he is the god over all learning when it comes to showing students both sides (what there IS another side?)regards to global warming. I was more than happy to email both the links you provided and to recommend other sources (as in the opposite) of information, including the film, The Global Warming Swindle. If Professor Hughes is SO sure Al Gore's movie is correct, then he would have no fear of showing the alternative viewpoint, right? After all education should not be indoctrination. Unfortunately as long as professors like Dr. Hughes are allowed to "teach", education will be exactly that. And many parents pay for this too!

Secondly, I have been waiting for another global warming article just to post what recently happened in my town. A woman was invited to talk at a local group about global warming. Her credentials? She worked for the Clinton/Gore campaign and even better, she was "trained" (in three days no less!) by Al Gore's minions at his "special school" in Nashville! She even got to meet him, shake his hand, and have her picture taken. Her agreement with Mr. Gore was to return to her home state to "spread the word" by getting invited to speak with local groups. One of her quotes to the local group was
"we basically walk through the science." Specifically Al Gore's science!

Is this not even more frightening than Mr. Gore's movie? To have these foot soldiers going around spreading outright lies and false science is truly something out of a science fiction novel. Thank God for columnists such as Mr. Mattera (a voice of reason in the midst of the insanity.)

Global warming
Mars is warming up, too!
I told them no SUVs or air conditioning, but they wouldn't listen.
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.