John McCaslin : Climate Battle Heats Up

Friday, July 27, 2007

Climate Battle Heats Up

by John McCaslin

123

John McCaslin's Email | John McCaslin | Author Biography

Read Comments | Post Comments

Forward

Single Page

Vote on It:

Average Vote:

[+] Text [-]

View Larger Photo & More >>

Business

Bill Clinton Campaigns For Hillary

Watch Video

Campaign '08

Romney: Hillary Clinton wants more taxes

Watch Video

Business

Busy Week In 2008 Campaign

Watch Video

Diet Soda Makes You Fatter

Universal Healthcare

Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?

Yes
No
Maybe/ Don't Know

Getting hotter

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.

During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

CEI does not dispute climate change, however it differs with certain environmental groups, including ACORE, on the causes. After Mr. Inhofe read Mr. Eckhart's comments, which were first reported by Inside the Beltway two weeks ago, the EPA chief promised to probe the matter.

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."

When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

Based in Washington, ACORE's mission is to increase the use of renewable energy. Its 400-plus "paying" organizational members come from government, financial institutions, trade associations, academia, and other professional services.

Besides ACORE, Mr. Eckhart is co-chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy and a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Previously, he was CEO of United Power Systems; vice president of the venture capital firm Arete Ventures; a General Electric manager; and a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton's energy practice.

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr. Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."

Here's to Hyde

Here's wishing a speedy recovery to former Republican Rep. Henry J. Hyde, who had successful triple-bypass heart surgery over the weekend in Illinois.

Meanwhile, the House Foreign Affairs Committee room in the U.S. Capitol was to have been named this week for the former International Relations Committee chairman, but the ceremony is postponed until the 83-year-old Mr. Hyde recovers.

A longtime House Judiciary Committee chairman who oversaw the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton, Mr. Hyde chose not to run for re-election in 2006.

Surprising Vivian

Members of the Fourth Estate converged on the Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City on Wednesday evening to wish a very surprised Vivian A. Deuschl congratulations on her 20 years with Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., where she is the longtime corporate vice president of public relations.

What many admiring reporters who work with her don't realize, is that Mrs. Deuschl was once an editor for the China Post in Taipei, Taiwan. She was also special assistant to the undersecretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism, and served as a White House press aide under former President Gerald R. Ford.

She once allowed this columnist to accompany her into former President Bill Clinton's plush bedroom suite high atop the Portman Ritz-Carlton in Shanghai shortly before the president arrived from Beijing. There, she personally decorated the surroundings with a few of Mr. Clinton's favorite furnishings, including a framed portrait of "Buddy," the president's Labrador retriever, who was left back at the White House. (There is no truth to the rumor that this columnist short-sheeted Mr. Clinton's bedsheets.)

Among those toasting Mrs. Deuschl was The Washington Post's Gary Lee, who ironically had just reported that the Ritz-Carlton "nudged" ahead of both JW Marriott and Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts as the "favorite luxury hotel of guests," according to a survey by J.D. Power and Associates.

Other well-wishers included NBC producer Susan LaSalla; former Washingtonian food and wine executive editor Thomas Head; USA Today's Ron Schoolmeester; Ritz-Carlton president and COO Simon Cooper; and former news anchor-turned-Marriott International executive vice president of global communications, Kathleen Matthews.

Digg

Del.icio.us

Facebook

Newsvine

My Web

MySpace

Forward

Single Page

Vote on It:

Average Vote:

About The Author

John McCaslin is a contributing columnist on Townhall.com and author of Inside The Beltway: Offbeat Stories, Scoops, and Shenanigans from around the Nation's Capital .
Be the first to read John McCaslin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

News Articles On This Topic

Jackson's 'Captain EO' to return to Disneyland

Officials: Pot found on 2 Lil Wayne tour buses

LeAnn Rimes' husband files for divorce

Popular Articles By McCaslin

So Much for Sarah

Clinton's Temper

CNN Blitz

Join The Debate!
Post Your Comment
(123 comments so Far)

View in ascending order View in descending order

el polaco Location: OK

Reply # 1
Date: Jul 27, 2007 - 11:44 AM EST

"Renewable" Energy

Just once I woulsd like to have some one in power to question these "renewable" enegy faddist to be confronted with the Question "How many square miles of new land will have to be covered with solar farms ,wind farms, 'magic' plants,etc. to REPLACE the petroleum that they detest"..... we are talking the size of medium sized states !!!!

Flag as Offensive

2 Guns Location: AZ

Reply # 2
Date: Jul 27, 2007 - 2:05 PM EST

What a piece of work

This Eckhart is really something. No one can argue any possibility except humans are to blame. Just gotta have renewable energy, of course he's beholding to the renewable energy crowd. Renewable energy, e.g. ethanol and bio-diesel are gonna save us all. What a moral problem that is going to be, starving people the world over will just love us as we "grow" our fuel at the expense of the starving. I guess its better to starve than to suffer from global warming, eh?

I'm getting just a little tired of listening to all this garbage. My lord, since forever, someone has always predicted gloom and doom for humanity and they have always been wrong, period. There is nothing that shows me that this isn't just another doomsday senario, that in the end will prove itself to be expensively false.

Flag as Offensive

pandm Location: IN

Reply # 3
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 7:13 AM EST

climate is warming

Sure it is,but think a little
It has been warming for thousands or millions
of years.
There are 800 million cars in the world producing
heat via the motor & body heat.
There is enough cement in the world to cover all
of America. This reflects heat.
There are 3 0r 4 billion buildings reflecting
heat.
The earth's rotation is slowing--and in turn is
closer to the sun.
The sun may be burning hotter - there is no way
to know
There is no way to measure the temperature of the
earth.
There are 6 billion people giving off body heat.
ETC & ETC

If people are causing any warming, then at least
5 billion are going to have to go.

Flag as Offensive

eon Location: OH

Reply # 4
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 8:14 AM EST

Eckhart

States that his missive was in the spirit of "personal combat and jousting"?

Coming from a card-carrying member of the ultra-pacifist "progressive" crowd, that's a fairly odd statement.

But more to the point, science is supposed to be about facts. Not opinions, not dogmas, and certainly not about "personal combat". (Never mind that Tycho Brahe got his nose cut off in a duel about who was the better mathematician.)

Eckhart is just another cultist who dreams of a world in which he rules, handing down commandments from on high to the peasants- and one in which he can have anyone who dares to disagree with him burned at the stake for heresy. His second (threatening) communication makes this quite clear.

And his reflexive hatred of "the energy industry" also makes it quite clear that it is energy production as a whole which arouses his (self-righteous) wrath, not merely the type that he claims adds to "global warming". Translation; yet another primitivist, would-be feudalist neo-Luddite. (Not that this particularly surprises me; he's a typical member of the leadership of the modern "ecology" movement. Unfortunately.)

If Mr. Eckhart wants to pursue his pogrom against "unbelievers", that's his privilege. (Part of the right of free speech under the First Amendment is the right to make an a$$ of yourself in public.) But I see no reason he should be indulging his megalomaniac tendencies on the taxpayers' nickel.

He wants "global warming" to be the new religion? Fine. Under the principle of separation of church and state, he should receive no government monies with which to pursue his crusade.

All taxpayer support for ACORE should be ended immediately.

cheers

eon

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 5
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 8:24 AM EST

"personal combat and jousting." Really??

Ummmm......

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar,....launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan...."

Sounds like a "THREAT" to me.... a "declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course..."

But, I guess Mr. Marlo Lewis was lucky that Eckhart only threatened to destroy his CAREER. Many (scientists and journalists, etc.) who have spoken out against this "gloBULL warming hoax" have received DEATH THREATS.

Flag as Offensive

fayettebill Location: NC

Reply # 6
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 8:38 AM EST

Church of Gaia

Zealots from the church of the earth mother Gaia, Pope Owl Gore the first presiding, will tolerate no dissent from the gospels of IPCC as spelled out in the good book Inconvenient Truth.
Heretics and blasphemers will be deamonized and condemned to the nether regions.
History is rife with dissenters, such as Galileo and Capernicious, being excoriated by the establishment.
Eco-Radical Alarmists are the CO2 global warming establishment. Billions of dollars and political power are at stake and the scientific method is an inconvenient obstacle.

Flag as Offensive

Wilson54 Location: MS

Reply # 7
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 9:21 AM EST

Fighting Words

Mr. Eckhart seems to me to be using what gentlemen used to call "fighting words". I don't know Mr. Lewis or where he grew up but where I grew up in the southeastern Louisiana Bayou Cajun area talking to another man like that would earn you a one way trip to the swamp. And I don't mean for a guided tour. Of course had a conservative Republican or evangelical Christian made similar remarks to a liberal the MSM would want his head on a platter by sundown. So free speech is only for those in our country who toe the acceptable politically correct party line on issues like global warming. So much for that inclusive tolerance that liberals are so famous for.

Flag as Offensive

firetoice Location: NC

Reply # 8
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 9:39 AM EST

Queen of Hearts

"Sentence first. Trial later. Off with his head!"

Flag as Offensive

sedonaman Location: AZ

Reply # 9
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:23 AM EST

pandm:

.
“If people are causing any warming, then at least 5 billion are going to have to go.”

You see, that’s the rub. Deep down, these “greenies” hate mankind.

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 10
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:25 AM EST

Well

If Lewis doesn't lie he has nothing to worry about.

Lewis should be able to say whatever he wants, even if he lies. And Eckhart should be able to point out Lewis' lies.

What exactly is the problem here?

Flag as Offensive

sedonaman Location: AZ

Reply # 11
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:25 AM EST

fayettebill :

.
"Pope Owl Gore"

I love it!!

"It's hard not to write satire." -- Juvenal

Flag as Offensive

pandm Location: IN

Reply # 12
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:36 AM EST

sedonaman

I think you may be right

Al Glolbnut should set an example by dividing his
very big house into 20 apartments.
And you know where he can stick his 'carbon credits'.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 13
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:38 AM EST

Crimson2: One of the most clueless posts

this week...

The PROBLEM IS, Eckart THREATENED to DESTROY Lewis' career... and there is NO PROOF that anything Lewis has written is a lie!

THAT'S exactly is the problem here!!!!

The OTHER problem here is that instead of debating with FACTS, the lunatic liberal gloBULL warming advocate twits always accuse anyone who disagrees with lying, and as noted above, often with "DEATH THREATS!"

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 14
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:43 AM EST

pandm & sedonaman: No, no, no....

Then he'll be collecting indulgences from those 20 families rather than having to pay for and buying the indulgences himself. :-)

Flag as Offensive

sedonaman Location: AZ

Reply # 15
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:43 AM EST

Crimson2, et al

.
The problem is liberals, Leftists, and Democrats are all for free speech as long as conservative speech is NOT effective.

This is why you are seeing the Democrats trying to bring back the “Fairness” Doctrine – conservative talk radio is effective. However, the classic example of this is the case of White v. Lee (google) in which the Clinton Administration’s HUD tried to silence a group of citizens who were peacefully exercising free speech rights to get redress of grievances.

BTW, why is the head of the Environmental Protection Agency investigating the threatening letter? Shouldn't this matter be turned over to an investigative agency like the FBI?

Flag as Offensive

sedonaman Location: AZ

Reply # 16
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:58 AM EST

Anne:

.
A minor point here: You don’t “collect” indulgences. An indulgence is not a payment, but the act of treating a transgression with leniency. You are referring to the PAYMENT to OBTAIN an indulgence, as you correctly used the term the second time.

As far as Al Gore’s payment to receive his “indulgence” goes, I’d be willing to bet that if you followed his “indulgence” paper trail, it would turn out to be just that, paper, and that no actual money changed hands. Politicians are not in the business of giving money away.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 17
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 10:58 AM EST

Comment

Of course, this article has no bearing on whether or not global climate change is occurring, nor whether it is anthropomorphic.

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar"

"If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America."

What Mr. Eckhart is saying is that he is going to call Mr. Lewis out as a liar. If Mr. Lewis is lying then there is no problem.

Anthropomorphic warming is, seemingly, rather easy.

1. Warming is occurring and is causing problems [increased desertification, increased flooding].

2. CO2 has increased from ~250 ppm 11,000 yrs ago to well over 320ppm now.

3. The major increase in CO2 release, since the last ice age, is human beings

4. Therefore, anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, to some extent.

The question then becomes how severe is the human impact and what can be done to reduce or reverse this impact.

The question then becomes

Flag as Offensive

blustrmom/grndmomx2 Location: NY

Reply # 18
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:02 AM EST

Typical lib/dem cr$%

Don't debate, threaten, demean, vilify and ultimately destroy those who do not march lockstep with you wacky views.
Typical.

Flag as Offensive

Rubicon Location: PA

Reply # 19
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:27 AM EST

Slander, Libel, and Forced Conversion

Using his access to political groups, activist groups, international groups affiliated with the aforementioned, government and regulatory allies, and even some corporate allies, there are many ways for the politically well connected to destroy another. Worse is that if the media do not condemn such rantings as irresponsible and perhaps even illegal, there is a tacit approval of such rantings as justifiable.
ALGore told many media types at a meeting this year that he objected to reporting on any position that questioned his "the sky is falling rant" about Global Warming & Climate Change. He felt the media should not use balanced reporting because it biased the belief that these issues needed to be addressed according to his philosophies. He called it "balance as bias" reporting. What he meant was, allow no reports that reveal objections or show a contrary viewpoint. I guess Al's idea of free speech is, his is, no one else's is acceptable!
If balance is bias according to Al, then what is the reporting and positions he is advocating? In the weird world of some of these folks, they want only their story told because the other guy may reveal their real ulterior motives are to create a socialist state and/or world.
Mr. Eckhart's error was to put his threat in writing revealing what his intentions were. A great number of highly qualified scientists who are skeptical of the growing enviro-religion, have noted their funds for research have dried up. Access to certain equipment, certain data, even certain people, have also been quietly eliminated over the past few years.
The rest of Mr. Eckhart's buddies have simply done their dirty work behind the scenes so there is no traceable evidence of their misdeeds.
This kind of backstabbing has gone on for centuries. However, it has not been so well coordinated, funded, and supported by allies, even some within the government.
One must remember that the enviro community stands to make money on their plans too. So if the CEI folks have been bought & paid for by the fossil fuel industry, so too have many of these folks, by the "green-renewable" industry. ALGore owns at least an interest in the carbon offset outfit that provides him with his carbon footprint offsets credits. So he is paying himself when he buys those credits. How many other schemes are there out there these folks are using to promote their "industry?"
If Mr. Eckhart's positions are so credible, so correct, so right, then why does he have the need to threaten to conduct a campaign to destroy the character, reputation, and professional credibility of another? And why have research funds for many other skeptics been withdrawn, eliminated, ended, reduced, etc.? And why does ALGore want the media to only report the pro Global Warming - Climate Change perspective?
The solutions proposed so far, like Kyoto, represent more of an attempt to develop global taxes, enable the UN to become even more obnoxious in their bureaucratic control of the world, and establish socialist collectivist policies and governments around the world.
So to me, the solutions to this supposed problem are designed to facilitate the takeover of global governance by those who are supposed to be "do-gooders" looking out for all of us. They just will end up the ones running everything and profiting from their operations.
One wonders exactly how many others have been silenced on these issues and what information has been silenced as well. Add to that questions about information supplied so far that appears could have easily been manipulated, and we see a real effort by the socialists of the world to make their move. Those computer models a lot of this is based on are so easy to fudge by manipulating input data or source codes. Then you have to ask yourself... if weather forecasters cannot tell us with accuracy what the weather will be thirty days from now, just how accurate are the predictions these folks are making for 100 years from now? Predictions we are being told we must invest trillions to deal with, and the serious reductions in living standards we will be compelled to accept?
Of course their real problems will be contending with the Islamo-Fascists who want to seize it all too! We civilized democracy & free market types just try to get along. The terrorists will kill em to get what they want!

Flag as Offensive

jerabaub Location: FL

Reply # 20
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:28 AM EST

Hysteria

There are still a few relatively sane voices within the enviro-movement, but increasingly this movement is taking on the trappings of a pseudo-religion.

If anyone, especially one of its priests, questions the validity of its "holy scripture", that person is subject to destruction, either physically or thru destroying his reputation.

Robert Kennedy Jr. did publicly declare that anyone, presumably any government spokesperson, who still questions global warming, should be charged with treason.

Now that is getting pretty far out there. That is lunatic-fringe material.

There is this absolutist, sacrosanct mindset among many in the enviro-movement that borders on fascism. They deem themselves the right to dictate to the rest of us the types and sizes of vehicles we can own. Soon they will tell us what size homes we can own. All in the name of limiting the dreaded "carbon footprint".

Meantime they lease private jets to go all over the nation, excoriating the rest of us to give up our pick-up trucks and suvs.

These people are demented.

Flag as Offensive

Dave in Denver Location: CO

Reply # 21
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 12:01 PM EST

Why of it all

Really good comments preceed. But really, the "why" of it all is explained in part by the "who" that drives it. They are liberals and they have a dislike (or worse) of capitalism. Do they fear it or do they innately believe something else is better? That I don't know.

But global warming hype is about putting the chains on capitalism, and with it, chains on America. Again, for reasons hard to appreciate, I think this is what many liberals seek more than not.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 22
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 12:37 PM EST

DA

You are just flat out wrong. You have made an unwarranted leap of logic: "4. Therefore, anthropomorphic global warming is occurring, to some extent."

That is an assumption on your part unless you consider it in the extreme (example: taking a leak in Lake Superior will raise its level to some extent).

1. The CO2 level is not the highest it has ever been.

You don't know that human activity is the greatest contributer to CO2 although it is certainly a significant contributer.

2. You say: "The question then becomes how severe is the human impact and what can be done to reduce or reverse this impact."

You assume that the impact of warming is negative. That is an unwarranted assumption as is the idea that it is causing "desertification".

The global warming scam is about to take to its death bed, if it isn't already there, because the other side, the SCIENTIFIC SIDE is beginning to be heard despite the best efforts of the "Global warming as a religion side" to prevent it.

I offer for your thoughtfull consideration the following:

GLOBAL WARMING, FIFTEEN UNDENIABLE FACTS
(Everyone Should Know)

1. The Earth has been getting warmer for 300 years; it didn’t start with automobiles. It is a fact that the Earth has been through ice Ages”. We are now in a warm period or “interglacial”.

2. Historically, there have been even warmer periods in the Earth’s history. The Vikings grew wheat in Greenland a thousand years ago, but not now! It is no longer a green-land.

3. The geologic record shows that during major warming cycles, most of the increase in temperature is at higher latitudes, (like Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Siberia) not in the tropics.

4. The solar constant isn’t constant. The Sun goes through cycles. It is in a high activity cycle now.

5. That the ice caps on Mars are retreating is strong evidence of changes in solar activity.

6. The “greenhouse effect” is not a bad thing; it is one of the things that make our world habitable by smoothing out temperature variations. Without it, Earth would be a ball of ice.

7. The primary “greenhouse gas” is not CO2 at all, but water vapor! By volume, water vapor may comprise as much as 4% of an air mass, more than one hundred times that of CO2. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the total greenhouse effect.

8. The present level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is only .036% or 360 parts per million by volume (PPMv). Human activity is probably not the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere as levels of 280 PPMv occurred repeatedly before the industrial revolution.

9. CO2 is not a pollutant; it is absolutely essential to life. It is to plants, what Oxygen is to us.

10. The Jurassic atmosphere contained ten times as much CO2 as we have now. Earth didn’t burn up!

11. More CO2 makes plants grow faster. The faster plants grow, the faster they remove CO2 from the air, so; it tends to be self-limiting.

12. There is a connection between global warming and CO2, but geological evidence indicates that the CO2 increases come a few hundred years after the warming rather than preceding it.

13. Glaciers and polar ice have been slowly retreating since the last ice age but some glaciers and ice packs are actually growing. The most active glaciers are not in the coldest areas.

14. Satellite acquired data on global temperature increases, is lower than the ground based computer models that predict warming. Satellite data is not skewed by the “urban heat island effect”.

15. The main source of methane from human activity is apparently rice farming, not cattle. There is so little methane in the atmosphere that it is hardly a factor at all and it doesn’t last long.

Conclusion: We are in a “warming period” and quite possibly near the end of it. We are nowhere near a so-called “tipping point”, that is “Chicken Little” science. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and does have some effect, but the importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is minor in comparison to water vapor. The primary cause of climate change is, very simply, The Sun!
15. Tropical rainforests actually increase global warming. They collect more solar energy than bare ground and convert much of it to latent heat. Due to the high rate of decomposition of dead vegetation, the CO2 that they absorb doesn’t stay out of circulation for very long and they produce methane.

Flag as Offensive

Makoshark Location: FL

Reply # 23
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 1:00 PM EST

Scientists are just human

Having been a scientist most of my life I am always amazed at the rest of the world's lack of understanding about how science is suppose to work and even more amazed at their disbelief of how it does work in the real world.

"Scientific Consensus" is almost an oxymoron. Consensus is what a good scientist is suppose to question, suppose to attack with all the vigor of their mind, body and training. It is their job to try to punch holes, even small ones into present "theory". "Presently accepted theory" is as close as one comes to "scientific consensus". Global warming caused by anthropogenic gases can best be described only as an "hypothesis". Whether that "hypothesis" evolves into theory none of us living today will ever know.

However, for scientists to become political advocates is nothing knew. Contary to mythology Galileo didn't get in trouble for his science but for disobeying and fighting with his church sponsors. Many of the scientist speaking for or against the various hypotheses today relative to why territrial temperatures have apparently increased are not even necessarily experts in the field. A climate modeler is not necessarily a climate expert but is dependent on a variety of other experts in other fields of endeavors to provide them with the model inputs, model testing in the real world, and ultimate verification of their models.

That scientists will "do things" for money shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. You have to live and often support a family. Few if any scientists are independently wealthy. And all bring with them their prejudices, political views, and often strange personality traits unique to scientists.

Flag as Offensive

jayhawkerkc Location: AL

Reply # 24
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 1:51 PM EST

Will lying win?

If the law isn't on ;your side, argue the facts.
If the facts aren't on your side, argue the law.
If neither is on your side, lie.
If lying isn't a winner, threaten.

Flag as Offensive

sedonaman Location: AZ

Reply # 25
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 1:57 PM EST

Words mean NOTHING

.
"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan ... "

There is no point arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of man-caused global warming, or ANY issue for that matter, with liberals because, as some have observed here, the whole thing has become an article of faith with them (except those, like Eckhart, to whom it means megabucks).

In addition to that, words they say mean NOTHING to liberals. Just look at Eckhart’s response to public criticism: “He said he intended his letter to be a ‘private communication’ in the context of ‘personal combat and jousting’." How can one derive “personal combat and jousting” from threats like, “I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity ... I will call you a liar and charlatan” ?

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 26
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 2:48 PM EST

sedonaman: Actually, words mean

everything!

How sad that you don't know that!

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 27
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:03 PM EST

Unhinged?

"Shouldn't this matter be turned over to an investigative agency like the FBI?"

LOL..for what? Eckhart said "if you keep lying I am going to tell everyone that you are lying."

That is a threat, I guess, if you are a liar. If you are not a liar, then why would you care?

"and there is NO PROOF that anything Lewis has written is a lie!"

Um, isn't that what Eckhart is threatening to reveal?

You guys are a little oversensitive.

Flag as Offensive

firetoice Location: NC

Reply # 28
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:16 PM EST

Proof

It appears that Eckhart would have to PROVE that current global warming is man-made; and, that Lewis also KNOWS this. That could be quite a challenge.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 29
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:23 PM EST

Crimson2: Typical liberal lunatic!

Incapable of logical and rational thinking!

No, what he said was that he would ruin Lewis' career, which is quite different from saying that I'll tell everyone you're lying.... Maybe you should have someone read the column to you since you don't seem to be able to get it on your own.

And, of course, Eckhart needs to threaten to "ruin Lewis' career" because THERE IS NO PROOF that Lewis has lied about anything...

It's simply that Lewis doesn't agree with the gloBULL hoax!

But, as I said above, Lewis is lucky since the lunatic liberal gloBULL warming twits have actually made death threats to many scientists and journalists who have dared to write and/or speak out against the twits.

So, you want to talk about "unhinged?"

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 30
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:24 PM EST

Crimson2

Actually, what Eckhart said was: "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar'

Producing an editorial is not necessarily the same thing as lying. Did that escape your notice?
Then he goes on to say he will CALL him a liar, presumably whether or not he tells a lie!

I think that what Eckhart is saying is "don't attack my religious beliefs".

Having spent several years working closely with scientists who were the absolute leaders in their fields, I can tell you that, not withstanding their scientific accomplishment, they have their pet beliefs which they will stubbornly cling to until they are absolutely beaten over the head with the facts. Even then, their pride makes it very difficult for them to admit an error.

Flag as Offensive

firetoice Location: NC

Reply # 31
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:26 PM EST

Anne

Did you enjoy the paper I linked last week?

Flag as Offensive

jayhawkerkc Location: AL

Reply # 32
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:47 PM EST

Sedonaman wrote:

"Politicians are not in the business of giving money away."

Actually politicians are in the business of give money away. Other peoples money.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 33
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:53 PM EST

firetoice: Hildabeast? Yeah! LOL

What a hoot!

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 34
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:53 PM EST

firetoice: "ers" LOL

.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 35
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 3:55 PM EST

firtoice: Sorry, that was low.

I just couldn't help it. :-)

Flag as Offensive

jayhawkerkc Location: AL

Reply # 36
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 4:03 PM EST

It's the seriousness of the charges

This reminds me of the yellow-scandal when George H W Bush allegedly flew to Paris in an
SR-71 in 1980.

That's what Speaker of the House Rep Tom Foley (D-WA) said when he called for for an investigation of the charges in Gary Sick's book "October Surprise" even though there was no evidence.

This is yellow-liberal sour grapes.

Flag as Offensive

pandm Location: IN

Reply # 37
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 4:45 PM EST

anne

You are right
We'll let Al live in the shed & tend the garden.
With some training,- or just clean the tools.
I mean, surely we can find something he can do.

Flag as Offensive

Polly1 Location: IN

Reply # 38
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 5:01 PM EST

FUN word meanings

Kind of off-subject but I like it:

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Algor \Al"gor\, n. [L.] (Med.)
Cold; chilliness.

Could this be why Mr. and Mrs. Gore named their son "Al"? Could this be why he gravitated to "global warming"?

(Actually I have a somewhat newer dictionary (1962) that defines "algor" as "a chill felt during fever." Either way....)

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 39
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 5:05 PM EST

wally

--1. The CO2 level is not the highest it has ever been.—
I never said it was. If you’d read my post, I gave dates [11,000 yrs ago, 280 ppm and currently over 320 ppm]. It has been higher in the past and during those times much of the land mass now exposed was under water. Also, many areas that are temperate and jungle today were desert then. Get your facts right before making accusations.
--You don't know that human activity is the greatest contributer to CO2 although it is certainly a significant contributer.—

Have you looked at the evidence? Apparently, you have not.
The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. P. Falkowski, et al. Science 13 October 2000:Vol. 290. no. 5490, pp. 291 – 296.
Keeling, CD & Whorf, TP. (2005) Trends: A Compendium on Global Data, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN,). *also has website: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm
Greenhouse gas growth rates. James Hansen and Makiko Sato. PNAS 2004 101: 16109-16114
--2. You say: "The question then becomes how severe is the human impact and what can be done to reduce or reverse this impact."

You assume that the impact of warming is negative. That is an unwarranted assumption as is the idea that it is causing "desertification".

The global warming scam is about to take to its death bed, if it isn't already there, because the other side, the SCIENTIFIC SIDE is beginning to be heard despite the best efforts of the "Global warming as a religion side" to prevent it.—

How many people will it take for you to recognize a problem? It is more that desertification that is a problem, it is worldwide climate imbalance. We are in the midst of a 6th mass extinction that is only going to get worse. People are dying daily of thirst and starvation, but what do you care. After all, it is mostly occurring in 3rd world countries like Africa and India. There is plenty of evidence of problems now and they will continue to worsen.

J. D. Neelin, M. Münnich, H. Su, J. E. Meyerson, and C. E. Holloway
Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations
PNAS 2006 103: 6110-6115
John J. Stachowicz, Jeffrey R. Terwin, Robert B. Whitlatch, and Richard W. Osman
Linking climate change and biological invasions: Ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions
PNAS 2002 99: 15497-15500
Ecological Consequences of a Century of Warming in Lake Tanganyika
Piet Verburg, Robert E. Hecky, and Hedy Kling
Science 25 July 2003 301: 505-507
The Impact of Boreal Forest Fire on Climate Warming
J. T. Randerson, H. Liu, M. G. Flanner, S. D. Chambers, Y. Jin, P. G. Hess, G. Pfister, M. C. Mack, K. K. Treseder, L. R. Welp, F. S. Chapin, J. W. Harden, M. L. Goulden, E. Lyons, J. C. Neff, E. A. G. Schuur, and C. S. Zender
Science 17 November 2006 314: 1130-1132
Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America
Richard Seager, Mingfang Ting, Isaac Held, Yochanan Kushnir, Jian Lu, Gabriel Vecchi, Huei-Ping Huang, Nili Harnik, Ants Leetmaa, Ngar-Cheung Lau, Cuihua Li, Jennifer Velez, and Naomi Naik
Science 25 May 2007 316: 1181-1184
A World Without Corals?
Richard Stone
Science 4 May 2007 316: 678-681
Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham
Science 16 March 2007 315: 1529-1532

--1. The Earth has been getting warmer for 300 years; it didn’t start with automobiles. It is a fact that the Earth has been through ice Ages”. We are now in a warm period or “interglacial”. –

This fact is true but is an example of a misleading statement. While the world has been warming since the last ice age, the warming has begun to increase, drastically, in rate. It took over 10,000 years for atmospheric co2 to increase from 250 ppm to 280 ppm and then 150 years to increase from 280 ppm to 360 ppm.
--2. Historically, there have been even warmer periods in the Earth’s history. The Vikings grew wheat in Greenland a thousand years ago, but not now! It is no longer a green-land.—

I don’t know where you got that little tidbit of info but it is not correct. Greenland has been covered by an iceshelf for over 125,000 years. You were correct, however, that the earth’s climate has ebbed and flowed throughout history, it just hasn’t changed as quickly as it has over the last 150 years.
--3. The geologic record shows that during major warming cycles, most of the increase in temperature is at higher latitudes, (like Greenland, Canada, Alaska and Siberia) not in the tropics.—

It is still that way. This is why scientists were shocked when the average temperature of Greenland increased by 7 degrees f in one decade. This is compared to ~1 degree average over the same time period.
--4. The solar constant isn’t constant. The Sun goes through cycles. It is in a high activity cycle now.—

Changes from CO2 are estimated to be 3 times higher than those of solar irradiance.
Dependence of global temperatures on atmospheric CO2 and solar irradiance
PNAS 1997; 94: 8370-8377.

**I have some work to do, I’ll try to hit more of those points later.

And wally, these are not cookie cutter responses from some website but are from my own research into the subject. Why do I do the research on my own instead of depending on some website to do it for me? Because websites tend to have hidden agenda's and are not always trustworthy.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 40
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 5:31 PM EST

pandm: Yeah, but I'd be careful

about letting him have tools... Some of them can be sharp, ya know! LOL

Oh wait!! What was I thinking???? Let him have all the sharp tools we can give him! :-) But keep him in the shed and away from people and other living things. LOL

Flag as Offensive

fredo1659 Location: MO

Reply # 41
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 8:24 PM EST

DA

actually man in not the largest contributor of CO2 since the last ice age
volcanoes are

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 42
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 9:01 PM EST

Hey fredo1659, where have you been? Good

to see you on TH again....

And, yes, you're right! But try to tell that to a liberal who follows algore like a sheep! :-)

Flag as Offensive

fredo1659 Location: MO

Reply # 43
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 9:24 PM EST

anne

was in siberia for awhile but now

i'm baaaaaaack!

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 44
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 9:39 PM EST

fredo1659: Geeze, are they worried about

gloBULL warming there? LOL

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 45
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:21 PM EST

fredo1659

--DA
actually man in not the largest contributor of CO2 since the last ice age
volcanoes are--

Can you people read? I never said that man WAS the LARGEST contributor. Volcanoes have been a constant [relatively speaking], humans are a new contributor and are a primary source of INCREASED amounts of CO2 released in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. In other words, humans are adding about 16% in addition to the NATURAL CO2 sources. Do you understand the difference between the word 'increase' and the word 'largest?'

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 46
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:36 PM EST

DA

I think you have the dreaded "Chicken Little Syndrome"!

The facts I listed all came from scientific papers, not some blog. If you like I will give you a list of sources I havn't time to list them all at this moment but all of the facts I listed are easily verifiable.

Yes, the climate is changing. It is always changing and it is not unusual for changes to come about quite rapidly.

The popular computer models for "global warming" do not take into account the effects of thunderstorms in transfering heat to the upper atmosphere as well as to higher latitudes.

Your gurus have also not been able to explain the record low temperatures throughout much of the world this year.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 47
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:37 PM EST

DA: Sorry, totally inaccurate!

"...primary source of INCREASED amounts of CO2 released in the atmosphere over the last 150 years. In other words, humans are adding about 16% in addition to the NATURAL CO2 sources."

No proof of that! But, of course, that's exactly what algore wants everyone to believe, and obviously there are some liberal sheep out there who will and do believe anything....

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 48
Date: Jul 28, 2007 - 11:59 PM EST

Hurricane season is here

The warm waters of the Gulf and the Atlantc are brewing and "experts" are predicting another bad season. Granted, the hurricane season is just beginning, but we have not seen anything yet. Last year was supposed to be worst than the year of Katrina. The final 2006 tally: Not one hurricane hit land in the US. If we have another calm hurricane season, that would be Al Gore's worst nightmare. How is he going to explain it to his nuty followers? I can hear Gore now, "Please, God. Let there be wind and destruction. Amen."

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 49
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 12:52 AM EST

Anne

These Kool-Aid drinkers just regurgitate what they are fed in the Michael Moore and Al Gore movies. I would like DA to present proof that climatologists have been keeping records on world-wide atmospheric CO2 concentrations since prior to the Civil War, as he claimed. And, if there are such records, how would they prove the increase was due to human acitivity? The weather man can't even tell me if it will rain tomorrow.

Flag as Offensive

Fred_PA_2000 Location: PA

Reply # 50
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 1:06 AM EST

Is AGW merely a dangerous conceit?

I have from the beginning doubted the claims that humans are fatally affecting the planet's climate; On its face it is too strong a claimed effect attributed to much too puny an actor. I suspect that most global warming advocates are primarily afflicted with a monstrous conceit about their own wonderful powerfulness. These are people who've never flown cross country and observed that, from 30,000 feet, they're invisible -- too tiny to be seen. (And people who are almost certainly unaware that the biomass of all the ants on the planet outweighs that of all these wonderfully powerful HUMANS by a factor of perhaps 4:1.)

One could have a good chuckle at their overarching vanity and move on to more significant matters. Except that the hurts these people wish to inflict on the rest of humanity may be severe.

While the climate models being used to make these wild forecasts are wobbly at best, I suspect our economic forecasting models are at least somewhat somewhat more robust. And the economic effects are projected at an additional 1,500,000 unemployed in the U.S. If we match the claims of extremist environmentalists with those of equally extremist econometricians, crippling the economy to avoid an extra degree C per century may bring on a fairly permanent 1930's style Depression.

Those within the environmental movement who wish to be heard as reasonable claimants simply MUST give fairer consideration to the -- perhaps extreme -- price humanity must pay to achieve their desired future. I doubt very much that DA and Crimson2 have any inkling that the positions they're fighting for may eliminate roles such as theirs within the society -- a society with 25% unemployment will have no funding for any who are not directly productive.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 51
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 1:18 AM EST

Hound Dog: Yeah, well don't hold your

breath... LOL

'Cause there IS no proof that climatologists have records that show what they want us to believe.

In fact, go to... http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?text

You'll LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this one! LOL

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 52
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 1:25 AM EST

Hound Dog: I suspect that this year and

next are going to prove interesting, at best, with the glo-BULL warming sheep and the ronniepaul groupies.

I'm thinking a rude and painful awakening! :-)

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 53
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 1:47 AM EST

Anne

That is the first time I have seen such a chart. That is an amazing chart.

The worst hurricane years were the 110 years from 1850 to 1960. After 1960, every year has been at or below the average hurricane strikes, with the calmest from 2001 to 2004, which had less than half the annual average.

This is a credible report from the Nationa Weather Service. With the exception of a few memorable hurricanes, e.g. Camille, Andrew and Katrina, we are really going through a quiet period in the last 50 years.

SUV’s must be causing global cooling. Ha Ha Ha!!

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 54
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:13 AM EST

Anne

--No proof of that! But, of course, that's exactly what algore wants everyone to believe, and obviously there are some liberal sheep out there who will and do believe anything....--

Read some of the research articles that I've listed. That number is directly from the research. If you don't think that releasing giga tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is going to effect the natural CO2 cycle, then you are deluded.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 55
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:22 AM EST

hound dog

--I would like DA to present proof that climatologists have been keeping records on world-wide atmospheric CO2 concentrations since prior to the Civil War, as he claimed--

Again, read one of the research articles that I've listed.

The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of Our Knowledge of Earth as a System. P. Falkowski, et al. Science 13 October 2000:Vol. 290. no. 5490, pp. 291 – 296.

Keeling, CD & Whorf, TP. (2005) Trends: A Compendium on Global Data, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Dept of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN,). *also has website: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/trends.htm

Greenhouse gas growth rates. James Hansen and Makiko Sato. PNAS 2004 101: 16109-16114

J. D. Neelin, M. Münnich, H. Su, J. E. Meyerson, and C. E. Holloway
Tropical drying trends in global warming models and observations
PNAS 2006 103: 6110-6115

John J. Stachowicz, Jeffrey R. Terwin, Robert B. Whitlatch, and Richard W. Osman
Linking climate change and biological invasions: Ocean warming facilitates nonindigenous species invasions
PNAS 2002 99: 15497-15500

Ecological Consequences of a Century of Warming in Lake Tanganyika
Piet Verburg, Robert E. Hecky, and Hedy Kling
Science 25 July 2003 301: 505-507

The Impact of Boreal Forest Fire on Climate Warming
J. T. Randerson, H. Liu, M. G. Flanner, S. D. Chambers, Y. Jin, P. G. Hess, G. Pfister, M. C. Mack, K. K. Treseder, L. R. Welp, F. S. Chapin, J. W. Harden, M. L. Goulden, E. Lyons, J. C. Neff, E. A. G. Schuur, and C. S. Zender
Science 17 November 2006 314: 1130-1132

Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America
Richard Seager, Mingfang Ting, Isaac Held, Yochanan Kushnir, Jian Lu, Gabriel Vecchi, Huei-Ping Huang, Nili Harnik, Ants Leetmaa, Ngar-Cheung Lau, Cuihua Li, Jennifer Velez, and Naomi Naik
Science 25 May 2007 316: 1181-1184

A World Without Corals?
Richard Stone
Science 4 May 2007 316: 678-681

Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets
Andrew Shepherd and Duncan Wingham
Science 16 March 2007 315: 1529-1532

Arctic Air Pollution: Origins and Impacts
K. S. Law and A. Stohl
Science, 2007; 1537-1540.

Global temperature change Hansen, James et al. Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 103 (39). SEP 26 2006. 14288-14293

Do some research for yourself. Don't take my word for it. Go to the source, science.

Flag as Offensive

firetoice Location: NC

Reply # 56
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 10:11 AM EST

DA

The above cites are interesting, but they do not answer the specific request hound dog made, as I am sure you are aware.

Flag as Offensive

belize042 Location: CA

Reply # 57
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 11:21 AM EST

Go ahead, guy. Take me on

...he was CEO of United Power Systems; vice president of the venture capital firm Arete Ventures; a General Electric manager; and a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton's energy practice.

And THIS is the man who says someone ELSE has been "bought?" How many taxpayer-funded "alternative engery" subsidies have those entities sucked up? I wouldn't be surprised if Eckhart participates in something like Al Gore's scam, buying "carbon credits" from himself.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 58
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 12:52 PM EST

Hound Dog: KNEW you'd love that one!

Kind of makes one chuckle, doesn't it??? :-)

Well, if you're not a lunatic liberal sheep, that is! LOL

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 59
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 12:56 PM EST

Hey DA, Take a look at this NOAA chart!

Just one MORE piece to the gloBULL warming scam puzzle. LOL

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?text

Then, take it back to your favorite liberal cave! I'm sure your sheep friends will love it too! LOL

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 60
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 2:41 PM EST

Not end of the world

Science? Here is some science. For every pound of CO2 produced from the combustion of gasoline, one half pound of water vapor is produced. For every pound of CO2 produced from the combustion of ethanol, two thirds pound of water vapor is produced. What is so magical about CO2 that makes it the evil gas that is causing all the problems? No one is looking at the possiblity that the increased water vapor in the air is the reason for the eratic weather patterns.

It can be argued that the side effects of human-generated CO2 is a net benefit. I submit to you that the 3/4 degree of surface warming in the last hundred years has negligible consequences. Most of the glaciers are in the South Pole where the average temperature is -35 degrees Fahrenheit. No chance of that melting.

I worry more about water vapor. The water vapor that is pumped into the atmosphere from carbon-based fuels has more to do with weather change than does the CO2. The recent flooding in Texas and Great Britain is evidence that the humidity in the atmosphere is rising. Now, is that a bad thing? I venture to say no. Higher humidity means more rain. More rain is good, especially for the rain-deprived areas of Africa and other desert land masses. It brings life where life never existed and provides relief for the people who need it the most. More rain also means more plant life. More plant life leads to more animal life and more oxygen generation to sustain animal life.

The negative side of more water vapor is flooding, tornadoes and more intense hurricanes. But, in the overall scheme of things, that is merely an inconvenvience, something humans can adjust to, i.e. move away from the ocean and away from the rivers.

One last thing. The increase in water vapor in the air and more rain will no doubt raise the sea level, but by an insignificant amount, nothing that we humans and animals can’t adjust to. DA is correct to point out and I have confirmed that one billion tons of CO2 are pumped into the atmosphere each year. Although that sounds like a huge amount, in generating that amount of CO2 from gasoline, 500 million tons of water vapor is generated. That translates to 0.0001 inch rise of the oceans annually. In other words, at the current rate of water vapor generation, it will take 10,000 years for the oceans to rise one inch.

So, you habitual worrywarts, give it a rest. The world will not come to an end if we keep driving our SUV’s. We will find another source of energy before the polar bear and human drown.

Flag as Offensive

tj Location: MI

Reply # 61
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 3:15 PM EST

Why should any gov't agency join?

Why should any government agency join any private advocacy group.
It would appear that all kinds of conflict of interest rules could be violated.
Government is supposed to work for us.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 62
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 4:04 PM EST

DA

Now that I have a little more time, I will answer your objections more specifically.

You write: "While the world has been warming since the last ice age, the warming has begun to increase, drastically, in rate. It took over 10,000 years for atmospheric co2 to increase from 250 ppm to 280 ppm and then 150 years to increase from 280 ppm to 360 ppm."

Actually, the CO2 level has been generally decreasing for the past several million years. During the Jurassic, there was still ten times as much CO2 as we have now, and the atmosphere had twice the mass we have now! Did the Earth burn up? http://www.o2waterclean.com/Jurassic.htm pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1692169

Human activity is probably not the primary source of CO2 in the atmosphere as levels of 280 PPMv occurred repeatedly before the industrial revolution. As there is now about 360 PPMv, we may assume that we have added 80 PPMv. To put that into perspective, 80 is to one million as eight cents is to a thousand dollars! By contrast, water vapor, also an effective “green-house gas”, can reach 40,000 PPMv in hot humid areas. http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html

Without CO2 plants can’t live and we would not exist; there would be no breathable oxygen and nothing to eat. CO2 in the atmosphere has arguably been seriously depleted. The use of fossil fuels may actually be highly beneficial in replenishing it.

Greenhouse owners know that their plants grow 40% faster if they raise the CO2 level in the greenhouse from the 360 PPMv ambient, to 1,000 PPMv (still only 1/10 of one percent of the air in the greenhouse). The lush vegetative growth required to form the vast coal deposits we have now, occurred during an early warm period, when vegetation grew very fast indeed! A high CO2 level was, no doubt, one of the reasons for that rapid growth. http://www.o2waterclean.com/Jurassic.htm http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/sgc/Indoor%20Garden%20Supply/CO2%20Systems

I wrote (and you disagreed) "Historically, there have been even warmer periods in the Earth’s history. The Vikings grew wheat in Greenland a thousand years ago, but not now! It is no longer a green-land."

The most recent warm period (known as “The Medieval Climate Optimum” or “Medieval Warm Period”) lasted from about 800 to 1,300 A.D. Crop yields were significantly enhanced. It is undeniable that crops were grown in Greenland that cannot be grown there today or that tree lines in northern Europe and Asia moved significantly northward. . http://worldclimate report.com/index/2006/05/25/more- evidence-of-arctic-warmth-a-long-time-ago/

You write: "We are in the midst of a 6th mass extinction that is only going to get worse. People are dying daily of thirst and starvation, but what do you care. After all, it is mostly occurring in 3rd world countries like Africa and India. There is plenty of evidence of problems now and they will continue to worsen."

As I stated previously, climate change is and always has been happening and it will continue. The best we can do is adapt to it. It is not within our power to prevent it and the overall effect of the natural warming period we are in may very well turn out to be benificial.

The starvation occuring in Africa is not due to global warming. It is mostly due to politics and especially Muslims intentionally starving out non-Muslims. Droughts in that part of the world are not exactly new news.

You seem to have ignored the majority of the fifteen facts I presented.

If you like, I will give you references for every single one of them.

We are in a “warming period” and quite possibly near the end of it. We are nowhere near a so-called “tipping point”, that is “Chicken Little science”. CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and does have an effect, but its importance as a greenhouse gas is dwarfed by water vapor, except at high latitudes, (where the volume of water vapor is very low, and where a little warming would be quite welcome). Even so, other factors, especially solar activity, are probably the major determinants of large changes, like ice ages, interglacials and climate optimums. That is not to say that we shouldn’t conserve precious natural resources and develop alternate energy sources. That just makes sense irrespective of weather forecasts. http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

Flag as Offensive

DJF Location: AZ

Reply # 63
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 4:09 PM EST

Sloppy science

DA
I did not read through your entire list of references but if you are basing any of what you said on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" model your entire argument loses all credibility. When Mr. Mann said that he would not be intimidated into revealing the algorithm which he used to draw his conclusions, he destroyed his own credibility. Isn't science supposed to be a process of peer reviewing another scientists findings? And doesn't this include the complete disclosure to the scientific community of ALL of the methods used to arrive at those findings?

And what's this thing about the 6th mass extinction. Your post seems to suggest that human beings are on the verge of extinction from thirst and starvation. Thirst? Really? Maybe you have sources for that assertion. It seems obvious that humans are a long way from extinction. Do you mean multiple species extinctions? If so, your sources?

You assert that humans are contributing 16% of the CO2 to the problem of global warming. How much of this 16% should or even could be eliminated?

Climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming (agw) are often accused of being in the pay of energy corporations, the implication being that they have a financial stake in opposing the idea of agw. But Mr. Eckhart's creds seem to indicate that he has a financial stake in promoting the idea of agw.
I wonder how many other pro agw climate scientists fall into that category. I also wonder about peer review among pro agw climate scientists. Some of Michael Mann's peer reviewers seem to have been people with whom he co-wrote other scientific papers. If that is true than his "Hockey Stick" data is further tainted, and is an indication of sloppy science.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 64
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 4:21 PM EST

Hound Dog

You write: "I worry more about water vapor. The water vapor that is pumped into the atmosphere from carbon-based fuels has more to do with weather change than does the CO2. The recent flooding in Texas and Great Britain is evidence that the humidity in the atmosphere is rising."

Stop worrying!

The water vapor that we put into the air through combustion of fossil fuels is miniscule compared to natural sources. The surface of the planet is 75% water and it is continuously evaporating. In addition, every tree and blade of grass puts water vapor into the air through transpiration.

Rain forests can actually create their own micro-climate in which much of the water vapor produced by the forest condenses and falls back on the forest as rain.

Generally speaking however, you're on the right track.

Flag as Offensive

Fuzzy Location: MI

Reply # 65
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 4:34 PM EST

Can't we just

create a special tax for being a liberal and use the money to buy carbon offsets on their behalf? Since trees require CO2 and we want less of that icky stuff, we could call it the "kill a tree for the environment" tax.

Yes, the tree overopulation must be culled for the health of the planet. I propose a national holiday with people volunteering to pitch in by executing a tree. Perhaps they could buy a plastic tree suffocating mesh from Wal-Mart and cover the tree with it to deny it any carbon dioxide.

Followed by a party with fireworks of course.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 66
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 4:52 PM EST

comments

Firetoice
--The above cites are interesting, but they do not answer the specific request hound dog made, as I am sure you are aware.—

Of course they do, but you have to look in the methods and materials sections. We have records for hundreds of millions of years utilizing a variety of techniques. For instance, the Greenland ice shelf has existed ~400 thousand years. Ice cores contain a variety of substances, including trapped air. Once measured, the trapped air can be used to ascertain the co2 of that given time period.

Anne
--Hey DA, Take a look at this NOAA chart!—
If you look, the hurricanes are getting more severe and that chart does not include one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, 2005. This season had 15 hurricanes, 5 category 4’s and 4 category 5’s, setting several records.

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 67
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:04 PM EST

wally

Oh, I'm anything but worrying. I was merely pointing out that if there was truly anything to worry about, water vapor would be a bigger deal than CO2. I don't think the portion contributed by human activity is of any significance, water vapor or CO2.

I have a theory why CO2 has been chosen as the boogyman. Carbon dioxide, a harmless, naturally occurring gas, sounds like carbon monoxide, which is a deadly gas. It strikes fear and panic in the hearts of John and Jane Doe, which is what the left wants to do. Then, Al Gore can swoop down in his cape and save us all.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 68
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:04 PM EST

wally

--Actually, the CO2 level has been generally decreasing for the past several million years. During the Jurassic, there was still ten times as much CO2 as we have now, and the atmosphere had twice the mass we have now! Did the Earth burn up?—

Of course, the deserts were larger and much of the N. American continent was underwater, but why concern yourself with trivialities such as the impact of the global warming on an earth populated by people. Another consideration is that the Jurassic period did not have 4 seasons, as we see them today. They had a hot, dry summer and a wet winter. This would not bode well for food production. Also, note that many scientists believe that climate change is responsible for several of the 5 mass extinctions.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 69
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:34 PM EST

wally

--Human activity is probably not the primary source of CO2—

I never said it was. It is the only source of unnatural CO2 and has been shown to increase the overall amount of co2 in the atmosphere.

--Without CO2 plants can’t live and we would not exist; there would be no breathable oxygen and nothing to eat—

Duh! Nobody is suggesting we eradicate CO2 in the atmosphere, just attempting to minimize any severe increases that can have detrimental effects.

--http://worldclimate report.com/index/2006/05/25/more- evidence-of-arctic-warmth-a-long-time-ago/--

Your link is worthless and would not work. Anyway, what is their source?

--As I stated previously, climate change is and always has been happening and it will continue. The best we can do is adapt to it. It is not within our power to prevent it and the overall effect of the natural warming period we are in may very well turn out to be benificial.—

Reducing the impact by reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a form of adaptation.
--The starvation occurring in Africa is not due to global warming. It is mostly due to politics and especially Muslims intentionally starving out non-Muslims. Droughts in that part of the world are not exactly new news.—

The expansion of the desert by about 5.5km per year is not helping. You forgot the damage done by Christians, as well as Muslims.

--We are in a “warming period” and quite possibly near the end of it—

What evidence is there for this belief? Is there some natural change that is occurring that I haven’t heard about? From what I understand, CO2 sinks are becoming saturated or destroyed and the oceans are beginning to acidify slightly killing off coral reefs which may significantly damage the natural feeding cycle of fish in the World’s oceans.

--We are nowhere near a so-called “tipping point”, that is “Chicken Little science”.—

I guess the next several decades will demonstrate this.

--CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and does have an effect, but its importance as a greenhouse gas is dwarfed by water vapor, except at high latitudes—

You forgot other organic molecules, like CH4, that are also much more potent than CO2.
--other factors, especially solar activity, are probably the major determinants of large changes, like ice ages, interglacials and climate optimums—

That is a factor in climate but must be taken into consideration with the rest of the picture. It has been studied and appears to be playing, only, a minor role in the current warming.
Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate System Model. Caspar M. Ammann, et al. PNAS | March 6, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 10 | 3713-3718

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 70
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:41 PM EST

DA

“If you look, the hurricanes are getting more severe and that chart does not include one of the worst hurricane seasons ever, 2005. This season had 15 hurricanes, 5 category 4’s and 4 category 5’s, setting several records.”

What happen in 2006 when we had no landfall hurricanes? Did everyone stop driving SUV's last year? We can pick and choose all day, but the fact remains that these spurts of extraordinary hurricanes are intermittent. In 1969, we had Camille, the worst landfall hurricane ever recorded worldwide, with sustained winds of 180 MPH and gust up to 220 MPH. It was 23 years later before we saw another hurricane of that magnitude with Andrew. It took another 13 years before Katrina. Sure, we probably have had more costly hurricanes in the last decade, but that’s because of development on the beaches and retirees migrating to the coastal states. None even come close to these three hurricanes in terms of wind speed.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 71
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:53 PM EST

DJF

--I did not read through your entire list of references but if you are basing any of what you said on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" model your entire argument loses all credibility--

I am not using that model as a basis. I agree that if a scientist is using a model that it should be evaluated. In other words, it needs to be reconstructible.

--And what's this thing about the 6th mass extinction. Your post seems to suggest that human beings are on the verge of extinction from thirst and starvation.--

--You assert that humans are contributing 16% of the CO2 to the problem of global warming. How much of this 16% should or even could be eliminated?--

That is a good question. CO2 emissions are only part of the picture. Some argue that we need to reduce the use of several greenhouse gases - CH4[methane], N2O [nitrous oxide], and chlorofluorocarbons, as well as CO2. I don't think it would be possible for us to eliminate all greenhouse gases, but the goal should be to reduce them as much as possible to natural levels. The wealthier countries, obviously, would have to take the lead in these areas by using better filtering on coal power plants [currently releasing 30% of the anthropogenic carbon] and utilizing technology to replace certain substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. And lastly, for people to take responsibility for themselves and try to reduce their energy consumption and avoiding aerosols if there are substitutes available.

It was not my intent to make it sound like humans are on the verge of extinction. I was referring to the number of species that have and are on the verge of going extinct currently.

Population Diversity: Its Extent and Extinction
Jennifer B. Hughes, et al. Science 24 October 1997: Vol. 278. no. 5338, pp. 689 - 692.

Extinction and the Loss of Evolutionary History.
Sean Nee, Robert M. May.Science 24 October 1997:
Vol. 278. no. 5338, pp. 692 - 694.

--Climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic global warming (agw) are often accused of being in the pay of energy corporations, the implication being that they have a financial stake in opposing the idea of agw. But Mr. Eckhart's creds seem to indicate that he has a financial stake in promoting the idea of agw.--

I agree that scientists should not have financial agenda's. However, it does appear that both people in the above article may have a financial agenda.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 72
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 5:58 PM EST

Hound Dog "boogyman theory?"

"CO2 has been chosen as the Carbon dioxide, a harmless, naturally occurring gas, sounds like carbon monoxide, which is a deadly gas."

Ya know, I've been thinking all along why all the hoopla about "carbon dioxide" a harmless, naturally occurring gas... Ultimately what harm can it do????

Even checking on the web, I couldn't find anything that answered my question... So, I guess I figured that I just might be the only person on the planet who didn't know the answer to that question...

Aaah haaa! I think you're onto something, and it isn't a "boogy man" theory afterall.

So, here are my questions to the gloBULL warming sheep.
1) Exactly what will additional carbon dioxide do to the planet and humans?

2) Exactly how MUCH additional carbon dioxide will it take to harm the planet and humans?

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 73
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:04 PM EST

DA: There is not one single whit of

truth, much less scientific evidence, in all that tripe you've posted.

Nothing! Zero! Nada! Zip! Zilch! Squat! Zippo!

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 74
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:07 PM EST

hound dog

--What happen in 2006 when we had no landfall hurricanes--

Apparently, an el nino and hot saharan air event.

http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/Forecasts/2006/nov2006/

*scroll down to #7 for the discussion

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 75
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:17 PM EST

DA

>The expansion of the desert by about 5.5km per year is not helping. You forgot the damage done by Christians, as well as Muslims.<

DUH, didn't say it was. No evidence whatever that the increase in CO2 has anything whatever to do with the problem of desertification. As for the "damage done by Christians", a non-sequiter and not true. Suggest you read "The Sword of the Prophet".

Sorry the link didn't work, try typing the whole link. It worked for me.

--We are in a “warming period” and quite possibly near the end of it—

What evidence is there for this belief?

Check out (key word) "Solar Constant". NOAA has a good bit on this, also The Sun is not a fixed object with a constant output of heat and light. In actuality, the planets and the sun revolve about the “center of mass” of the solar system. Sometimes that point is within the sun, but not always. Just as our moon cause tides on Earth, the planets affect the sun. The Sun's energy output is not uniform over its surface. What we receive from the Sun depends partly upon how the large planets are aligned, and our relative position. http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

--We are nowhere near a so-called “tipping point”, that is “Chicken Little science”.—

You say: "I guess the next several decades will demonstrate this."

Yup! None of the proposed "fixes" will reduce CO2 one little bit so, I guess they will. Algor's "carbon credit" scam would do nothing but sell "indulgences" to carbon hogs like Algor himself (and John Edwards of course). The projected increase in coal usage in China alone dwarfs all the CO2 produced by all of the SUVs and trucks in the US together. China alone will produce more CO2 than all the "Chicken Little" plans together can even hope to alleviate. SO, you had better damn well hope you're WRONG.

As for me... I know you're wrong!

You also write: "You forgot other organic molecules, like CH4, that are also much more potent than CO2."

No I didn't, #15 15. The main source of methane from human activity is apparently rice farming, not cattle. Even though methane is a very effective greenhouse gas, there is very little of it, only 2 PPMv because it doesn't last very long in the atmosphere. http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm

Shall we tell all of the countries that depend on rice to stop growing it?

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 76
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:22 PM EST

DA don't waste your time

These folks can't get it. I mean they are are arguing that the CO2 increase is not manmade for heaven's sake. You only confuse them by mentioning C12/C13 ratios.

Just tell them that every scientific org that studies the climate supports AGW. Every last one. Then they have to argue either scientists are stupid or there's a huge conspiracy. Makes 'em look like they fools they really are.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 77
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:28 PM EST

DA

-During the Jurassic, there was still ten times as much CO2 as we have now, and the atmosphere had twice the mass we have now! Did the Earth burn up?—

To which you respond: "Of course, the deserts were larger and much of the N. American continent was underwater, but why concern yourself with trivialities such as the impact of the global warming on an earth populated by people."

GET REAL! (a) did it burn up, or didn't it?
(b) This is a "strawman argument". You havn't demonstrated that CO2 is the cause of the present warming.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 78
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:38 PM EST

Crimson2

As I stated previously: "as levels of 280 PPMv occurred repeatedly before the industrial revolution. As there is now about 360 PPMv, we may assume that we have added 80 PPMv. To put that into perspective, 80 is to one million as eight cents is to a thousand dollars!" but then, I suppose you are to obtuse to have noticed that.

As for "every scientific org that studies the climate supports AGW. Every last one."

EVERY LAST ONE! You really are abtuse! or maybe just a liar, I wonder which one.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 79
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:45 PM EST

Okay, so now that we know those models

were wrong and the ocean isn't going rise 30+ ft., and destroy our coastline, yadda, yadda.

Exactly what harm did higher levels of CO2, a HARMLESS, NATURAL GAS, do in the past, when we KNOW there WERE periods of time that CO2 levels were higher than now?

And what gross harm are you threatening Carbon DIoxide (CO2) a HARMLESS, NATURAL GAS is going to do now?

Oh, and did I mention that it's a HARMLESS, NATURAL GAS???

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 80
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:48 PM EST

Uh wally, we just figured out that

Crimson2 is BOTH!

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 81
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:50 PM EST

No No, don't give up DA,

I really want an answer to my questions above...

Remember the ones about that Carbon DIoxide (CO2), that HARMLESS, NATURAL GAS!!!!!

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 82
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:51 PM EST

DA

“Duh! Nobody is suggesting we eradicate CO2 in the atmosphere, just attempting to minimize any severe increases that can have detrimental effects.”

Define “severe increases” and “detrimental effects”. Give me specific numbers that would significantly alter the “natural” 0.04% CO2 concentration. One category 5 hurricane every ten years does not count as detrimental effect.

“Reducing the impact by reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gases is a form of adaptation.”

First of all, the phrase “greenhouse gas” is a fabrication of the radical left. There is no proof CO2 in the atmosphere causes surface warming, especially when CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of the atmosphere.

“The wealthier countries, obviously, would have to take the lead in these areas”

Finally, we are getting to the real agenda behind global warming. Like anything else, it is the economy, stupid. Nations always jockey for economic dominance. No nation just wants to get along. The lefties are merely pawns of international forces, such as George Soros, determine to drive the United States down from its superpower status. The left wants us to sign onto the Kyoto Treaty in the name of saving the planet, but at the same time, gives China and India an exemption from compliance. That’s economic suicide. China, with its vast resources, is poised to be the number one consumer of fossil fuels and an economic superpower. Has anyone ever heard the left criticize the unfairness of the Kyoto Treaty for Americans? I haven’t. All I ever hear is condemnation of the US.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 83
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:52 PM EST

Crimson2: Excellent point, don't waste

your time!

So, why do you come here at all????

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 84
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 6:52 PM EST

DA /Crimson2

The thing you are not grasping is that the greenhouse effect is essential to our survival and that 95% of it is due to WATER VAPOR, not CO2.

Suggest you check out the work of Dr. Spencer (Univ. AL)

The fact that the leading proponent of these AGW theories lives in a house that consumes twenty times the fossil fuel of an average house and flies around in a private jet, could make one wonder if he actually believes the doctrines he promulgates, or, if he is just has a vested interest in “carbon credits”. Perhaps “ranchos” in “Antarctica River Estates’ will be “Al ’s” next big thing.

Flag as Offensive

Denny Location: TX

Reply # 85
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:01 PM EST

This is just nuts!

The #1 problem, environmentally on Earth, is the paucity of water. Only 3% of the water on this planet is pottable. Who among us would choose of glass of oil over a glass of cool, drinkable water? Without water, there is no life anywhere and no reason for hope.

What we need is a desalination plan to reclaim ocean water for irrigation and drinking. During Desert Storm, I was a penpal to a young Marine on board ship in the gulf who ran the water desalination program for our people on the ground. So, the how-to knowledge is there but where in this world gone mad is the will? Perhaps water is just not as romantic as carbon footprints?

When the environmentalists finally get real, then perhaps I can listen to them...but, not yet.

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 86
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:06 PM EST

DA

"--What happen in 2006 when we had no landfall hurricanes--"
"Apparently, an el nino and hot saharan air event."

Let's say we have "el nino and hot saharan air events" for the next five years. Will the global warming forces finally cool their jets? I'm sure by then, the left will come up with another disaster scenario, which George Soros would be more than happy to finance.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 87
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:14 PM EST

Anne

--DA: There is not one single whit of
truth, much less scientific evidence, in all that tripe you've posted.

Nothing! Zero! Nada! Zip! Zilch! Squat! Zippo!--

Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling - Lalalalala - may make you feel better but will not alter the situation. Obviously, you have done no actual research on the subject other than looking on cookie cutter websites. Bravo, for the ease in which you can sequester yourself from the world.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 88
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:22 PM EST

DA

Speaking of putting your fingers in your ears and yelling Lalalalala..

You have yet to answer the majority of my 15 undeniable facts about global warming. Or was that you saying Lalalala?

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 89
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:30 PM EST

Ozone

What ever happened to all the hysteria about ozone depletion, how everyone was going to get cancer and the resulting ban on CFC's for refrigeration and aerosols? I guess that's one those Rush "drive-by catastrophes".

Ozone (O3), like the other naturally occurring gases with three elements, e.g. CO2 and H2O have shown to act as filters for the damaging ultraviolet radiation. These tri-atomic gases are supposed to filter the UV radiation which damages our skin. So, it makes sense to me that any CO2 added to the environment can only be a positve. We can use anything that prevents melanoma.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 90
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:35 PM EST

DA: Actually, I've done LOTS of research

which is why I know that your "chickenlittle-the-sky-is-falling" diatribe means nothing, zep, zilch, nada, etc.

So, how about answering Wally's, Hound Dog's, any my questions?

Huh? How about it???

We're waiting! :-)

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 91
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:47 PM EST

Hey H- Dog: How does one solve a hoax???

I've heard about solving a problem, and solving a riddle, but I'm not sure how one goes about solving a hoax. Ummm?

Okay, how about this?

evidence - (gloBULL Warming) = HOAX!

Okay, never mind! I solved it! LOL

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 92
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:48 PM EST

wally

What gets me is these people want us to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, but they have no viable alternatives. I see these feel-good commercials on TV with these clueless actors saying we need a whole array of altenative fuel options. That all sounds good, let's hear specifics. Corn ethanol and biofuel? One acre of land produces enough corn for 10 barrels of ethanol annually. That's not much ethanol, and it will take a lot of land and resulting fertilizer runoff to the river. Not to mention the energy require to process, refine and transport the ethanol. Nuclear? We know how the environmentalists feel about that?

The bottom line is crude oil is the only viable option we have now. All these feel-good alternatives are government subsidized phony solutions. Anybody can complain. Coming up with solutions is much tougher.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 93
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:49 PM EST

And, Hound Dog, get this...

It even works if you have gloBULL warming squared!

The answer is still "HOAX!"

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 94
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 7:54 PM EST

Okay, I cheated a little and asked my

4yr. old grandson about the squared part....

"Hey Ryan, what happens if we square "gloBULL warming?"

He gave me "the look" and said, "Uh, it's still 'HOAX!!'" LOL

I hate it when he gives me "the look." :-)

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 95
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:06 PM EST

Hound Dog & Wally: And that Corn ethanol

...One acre of land produces enough corn for 10 barrels of ethanol annually, and it's very POOR quality which makes one wonder what burning that will do to the air quality.

And, yes..."Not to mention the energy require to process, refine and transport the ethanol."

The question is, how much of each acre of corn produced will it take to transport it to the "corn refinery?"

We are in the sad state we're in now because the liberal lunatics refused to allow drilling in ANWAR, as well as off the Calif. coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as not allowing any more refineries to be built or improved.

Thanks a lot, liberal guys!

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 96
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:12 PM EST

will

"I am starting to get an idea of just who doesn't have a life."

What kind of life do you have? Oh, never mind. You always manage to show up on TH.

Will reminds me of the store owner, Ben Weaver, on the Andy Griffith Show reruns. Ben was this anti-social man who hated everyone. But, came Christmas time, he was wondering the streets alone, looking for someone to talk to, but everyone was with family celebrating. He finally walked by the sheriff's office where Andy and everyone were having a ball. Old Ben said he was lost and just happened to drop by the office. Andy realized that Ben wanted to join the party. He invited him in and Ben didn't have to spend Christmas alone. A happy ending.

Welcome to the party, Will.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 97
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:27 PM EST

comments

--Let's say we have "el nino and hot saharan air events" for the next five years. Will the global warming forces finally cool their jets? I'm sure by then, the left will come up with another disaster scenario, which George Soros would be more than happy to finance.--

Lest we forget, I did not bring up hurricanes. Your croney, anne, did.

Denny
--The #1 problem, environmentally on Earth, is the paucity of water. Only 3% of the water on this planet is pottable. Who among us would choose of glass of oil over a glass of cool, drinkable water? Without water, there is no life anywhere and no reason for hope.--

Very true, a company has recently designed an inexpensive device to be used in 3rd world countries to make water potable. Google lifestraw. Keep in mind that it is science that makes these technologies work and not a politician.

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 98
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:27 PM EST

Anne

Guess how the ethanol is transported to the oil refineries where the ethanol is blended with the gasoline? Every drop has to be trucked to the refinery because the pipelines used to carry gasoline cannot be used for ethanol. Due to its corrosive properties, new pipelines must be constructed to have a comparable network as the gasoline pipe system.

It takes more energy to produce and transport the ethanol than the heating value of the ethanol itself. How stupid is that? Economics 101, anyone?

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 99
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:32 PM EST

Hound Dog

"The bottom line is crude oil is the only viable option we have now. All these feel-good alternatives are government subsidized phony solutions. Anybody can complain. Coming up with solutions is much tougher."

"We have now" seems to be the key phrase.

We really do need to be using neuclear and other energy sources. Not because of global warming, but because we can't afford to be held hostage by the Saudis et al plus the fact that crude oil is a finite energy source and the demand is ever growing.

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 100
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:44 PM EST

DA

"...a company has recently designed an inexpensive device to be used in 3rd world countries to make water potable...Keep in mind that it is science that makes these technologies work and not a politician."

The technology has been around for decades. Thanks to environmentalist nut jobs, it is only recently, due to desperation and public pressure in over-populated areas, that these technoogies are being put to good use. In Tampa, the city just installed reversed osmosis units to convert sea water to drinking water. Guess who were trying to block the project? The environmentalists pointed to the fact that the salt that is removed from the sea water and dumped back into the ocean will kill the fish. But, their efforts failed.

My point is that you can complain all you want about global warming. But, unless the market forces of supply and demand dictates it, alternative fuels will not get traction. All the Live Earth concerts in the world won't change a thing. It is only when we start to run out of crude oil and the price of a gallon of gasoline is $15 a gallon will alternative fuels be economically viable.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 101
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 8:49 PM EST

DA

"Keep in mind that it is science that makes these technologies work and not a politician."

That really is a very good point, in fact the best point you have made today.

Al Gore is not a scientist, even though he seems to fancy himself one.

One of the biggest problems in science is that politicians seem to think that it is their job to decide which side of a scientific controversy should be funded for research. Global warming and ozone holes are two prime examples.

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 102
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 9:18 PM EST

Anne

Oh, Anne. I just took my dogs for a walk. When I got back home, I noticed this terrible smell coming from my shoes. I had step on a pile of dog poop and tracked it all over my carpet. I wonder if Gore would let me use that as my carbon footprint?

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 103
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 9:37 PM EST

Hound Dog: Probably! But, no doubt

he'd charge you double! LOL

Geeze, I hope they're not big dogs! :-)

That's one of the reasons I prefer animals that belong in the barn! LOL I'd rather muck out a stall any day! :-)

Oh rats, that would probably cost me a lot in algore indulgences.

Flag as Offensive

Anne Location: VA

Reply # 104
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 9:44 PM EST

Hound Dog: Good news! :-)

We're supposed to get our FIRST HEAT WAVE of the summer...

Now, in all fairness we've had four or five DAYS(yeah, 4 or 5 DAYS) of 90 degress so far, but not three or more days of 90 degrees in a row, so we haven't had a real heat wave yet. (Damn, where IS that gloBULL warming??)

Whew, glad we're finally getting a real heat wave! I was getting worried that we might not be getting that gloBULL warming that algore promised! :-)

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 105
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 10:57 PM EST

For your education

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.html

This link provides links to the statements of:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

So, geniuses of Townhall, are all these sicnetific groups stupid or corrupt? Which nonsensical conspiracy theory are you going to go with here?

Breathlessly awaiting your response.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 106
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 11:37 PM EST

Anne

--So, how about answering Wally's, Hound Dog's, any my questions?
Huh? How about it???
We're waiting! :-)--

I have answered most of the questions asked. Unfortunately, a book on this subject could be written containing nothing more than condensed research.

I've noticed that no one has listed any credible research that disagrees with my position. Why is that? My hunch is that you do not read research journals, but politically driven websites. Notice, Anne, that I've provided plenty of references. Some of these you can find through the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science website. Most of the others were from Science, one of the most respected scientific journals around [it was founded in 1880 by Thomas Edison].

Here is a link to the IPCC's third report on global warming. It goes deeply into the science and research on the subject [touching on many of the questions here].

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 107
Date: Jul 29, 2007 - 11:39 PM EST

wally

--Al Gore is not a scientist--

Funny, I don't remember citing him in my long list of research articles.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 108
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 12:01 AM EST

BREATHLESSLY AWAITED RESPONSE

Stupid? NO
Corrupt? Probably not, just wrong

There are also a great number of scientists on the other side of this question but I see you didn't choose to list them.

Scientists nowdays depend, in large part, on government grants to do their research. If you want to do research that would lean towards proving this theory correct, funds are available so those scientists who are thinking along those lines, get funded. If (just for example) you want to do research that would show the part precipitation plays to alleviate and smooth out global warming or the positive effects of CO2 on our environment, do you think you will get funding? If you think so, you are very naive.

More and more scientists are speaking out and doing their research without any government support (I previously mentioned Dr. Spencer, Univ. Ala. but there are many others.

Additionally, there is no consensus in true science. It is not a popularity contest and votes don't count. There are many examples of scientists who were scorned by their contemporaries but who were later proved to be correct.

Go back and read my "Fifteen Undeniable Facts". You will find that they are all solidly grounded in science, not computer simulations.

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 109
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 12:18 AM EST

Sorry wally

I see you are going the research grant conpiracy route. Interesting choice.

As for your 15 facts, please provide a peer reviewed source for your claim that water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. Not somehitng you found on the internet, but something published in a reliable journal.

In case you want to skip this step and find out why you are wrong, you can simply search for Ramanathan and Coakley (1978).

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 110
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 12:36 AM EST

Crimson2 / DA

Well, here's a few. Check them out.

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-10/iss-4/p20.html

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

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age_031208.html

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=greenhouse%20effect

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.met.fsu.edu/explores/atmcomp.html

http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/sgc/Indoor%20Garden%20Supply/CO2%20Systems

http://www.o2waterclean.com/Jurassic.htm

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1692169

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=636

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanerice.htm

http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

Ramanathan and Coakley (1978). ? Sorry, no dice.
I can tell you where they missed it but I'm bailing out now. I will just leave you with this hint. What is the area (geographically) of greatest insolation, what is the mean humidity in that area (absolute not relative) what is the PPMv of CO2 in that area vs PPMv of H2O?

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 111
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 12:46 AM EST

wally?

Good idea to be cryptic now, wally. You know something that the NAS, NASA, NOAA and all the rest don't and you are playing guessing games on the internet?

Or are you just pretending to know the first thing about atmospheric radiative transfer?

Flag as Offensive

Hound Dog Location: NC

Reply # 112
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 1:30 AM EST

Crimson & DA

"atmospheric radiative transfer"

Oooh, that is impressive. Is that a fancy name for light waves or is that time travel?

Sorry guys, researching articles is what students do, and does not constitute proof. In the debate on the flatness or roundness of the earth, I'm sure there were articles written from both points of view, each from scientists with equally impressive resumes. When pursuing scientific knowledge, the only credible facts are the ones acquired through the "scientific method". It starts with observation of an event, in this case, the temperature of the earth's surface increases. If there is enough observations, and that takes time, then we can graduate to the subsequent stages of the scientific method, i.e. hypothesis, following by theory and finally accepted fact. Just because many people observed that the sun revolves around earth doesn't make it so.

Global warming has only come to the forefront of debate recently. I don't recall Al Gore or anyone else mentioning that word while he was VP. The human induced global warming is barely in the "observation" stage. Plenty more experiments must be performed for it to become fact. We can argue forever, but the scientific method is the only acceptable standard of proof.

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 113
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 8:01 AM EST

Not exactly

"I'm sure there were articles written from both points of view, each from scientists with equally impressive resumes."

And that's where you are wrong. It's interesting that you have a reasonable and rational view of science, but you have a faith-based opinion on how much scientific literature goes against AGW.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 114
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 8:35 AM EST

GREAT SCOTT!!! ARE YOU STILL THERE?

Notice that a couple of the references I gave you ARE NOAA. Did you look at tham before you spouted off? I seriously doubt it.

The head of NASA is actually the reason Peterson left (because of his rigid, unscientific approach to this subject, sort of like yours, you haven't answered my questions or addressed my fifteen points at all. You just refer me to someone els's paper that I doubt you have read)

As one who has a life outside of TH, I have to leave for work now. But just in case you are interested in facts and not just in sparring, let me leve you with this.

Do you understand the "First Law of Thermodynamics? Can you even state it? than answer this little riddle. Most people understand the basics of the water cycle. Do you understand “sensible” heat vs “latent heat”?

Warm, moist air is lighter than cold dry air, it rises and becomes unstable. it may rise and form clouds or thunderstorms over the ocean, or be carried by prevailing winds over land. I suppose your "advanced intellect" can grasp that concept. Now consider a very common scenario: The “orographic lift” thunderstorm. Very warm, moist air travels until a mountain range causes it to rise. As it rises, it cools as it expands with the lower atmospheric pressure. Eventually it reaches its dew point and clouds form. The vapor that condenses releases its “heat of vaporization”, further expanding the rising column and accelerating its rise. As it continues to rise, more vapor condenses, forming raindrops or possibly snow or hail. Eventually, when enough of the vapor has condensed, the cloud “tops out”, sometimes as high as forty to fifty thousand feet above sea level.

Now consider the fact that considerable heat energy has been removed from the surface of the ocean, transported hundreds of miles, produced a thunderstorm, dropping cold rain and possibly ice, and the air that transported it has been cooled to below freezing. We know that no energy has been “lost”, but where did it go? We can calculate the amount of energy involved from the amount of precipitation. It requires 600 calories per gram to change water from the liquid to vapor phase. When it goes back to a liquid it will give that up. If it freezes, it will give up another eight calories per gram. A thunderstorm, like the one described, can easily drop several thousand tons of precipitation!
When the thunderstorm tops out, the rising air still has to go somewhere. It will spread out, and now being drier and cooler, will form downdrafts and cool surface winds, hundreds or even thousands of miles from the area where the warm moist air originated.

So, where did all the heat go? Hmmmmm? Clue: I don't think you'll find the answer in the references you listed nor in the computer models your "heros" concocted.

Flag as Offensive

DA Location: MO

Reply # 115
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 10:21 AM EST

wally

Notice that the NOAA cited the IPCC, of which I linked. No one argued that climate is not complicated, only that the evidence supports climate change and a link to human activity. You seem to be trying to simplify the climate by ONLY implicating NATURAL causes instead of taking the whole process into account.

Flag as Offensive

Crimson2 Location: TN

Reply # 116
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 11:55 AM EST

huh?

Wow, wally. You are talking about thunderstorms and weather. We are dicussing climate and the greenhouse effect.

More CO2 = more IR retained in the gobal energy budget. What the heck do thunderstorms have to do with the physical properties of the CO2 molecule?

I notice that your only source for water vapor contributing 95% of the GH effect is on a Verizon user page. I had to laugh at that one.

Flag as Offensive

DJF Location: AZ

Reply # 117
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 12:49 PM EST

Al Gore is not a scientist

Ok, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want. Let's examine Al Gore's background, and his connections to Armand Hammer's Occidental Petroleum. If you check out your history you will find that Armand Hammer's father was a member of the American Communist Party. It is said that the elder Hammer named his son Armand in reference to the well known Communist workers symbol.

Documents released by both the FBI and the post-Soviet Russian government indicate that Armand Hammer was regarded by both the KGB and the FBI as an agent of the Soviet Union. Some conjecture that he was playing both sides and perhaps he was.

It has been asserted thatArmand Hammer contributed a significant amount of money to Al Gore Senior's initial run for Congress, and probably for Al Gore Jr. as well. I highly suspect that Al Gore's agenda is not about saving the environment but about control.

If I had been drinking any liquid at the time I'm sure I would have had one of those proverbial liquid out the nose accidents when a few months back I heard Al Gore accuse the Republicans of scare tactics. And he did so in a screaming voice. It sort of reminded me of some of those old Nazi news reels.

Probably most of you are aware of Doctor Michael Crichton's thoughtful speech that compares todays environmentalist community to a religion. If you haven't read it, check it out. He makes several excellent points.

Flag as Offensive

DJF Location: AZ

Reply # 118
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 4:39 PM EST

IPCC POSSIBLY NOT A GOOD SOURCE

Almost 15 months ago, economist David Henderson, addressing "Timbro" in Stockholm, made the following observations about IPCC

"· Reason No. 1 is that providing for peer review is no safeguard against dubious assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are largely drawn from the same restricted professional milieu.

· Reason No. 2 is that the peer review process as such, here as elsewhere, may be insufficiently rigorous. Its main purpose is to elicit expert advice on whether a paper is worth publishing in a particular journal. Because it does not normally go beyond this, peer review does not typically guarantee that data and methods are open to scrutiny or that results are reproducible.

Third, in response to criticisms that have been made of published and peer-reviewed work that the IPCC has drawn on, the authors concerned have failed to make full and voluntary disclosure of data and sources. A leading instance is that of the celebrated ‘hockey-stick’ diagram, which was prominently displayed and drawn on in the Third Assessment Report and afterwards. Probably no single piece of alleged evidence relating to climate change has been so widely cited and influential. The authors concerned failed to make due disclosure of data and sources, and neither the publishing journals nor the IPCC required them to do so As a result, fundamental errors and evidence of deficient statistical properties were concealed until very recently.[5]

Fourth, the response of the Panel’s directing circle and milieu to informed criticism has typically been inadequate or dismissive. A recent instance of such behaviour is the official response by the British government to the report from the House of Lords Select Committee, which does little credit to the department concerned.[6] Within the scientific community, as Richard Lindzen has noted, these dismissive attitudes have sometimes gone together with a disturbing intolerance of dissenting views and ideas.

Fifth, I believe that both the Panel’s directing circle and the IPCC milieu more generally are characterised by an endemic bias towards alarmist assessments and conclusions. Again, this situation has been described by Lindzen. Let me add here a pertinent observation made by two German academics, one of them, Hans von Storch, a well known climate scientist. They have made the point that, in the context of climate change, ‘Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information’"

Notice he quotes Hans von Storch and Richard Lindzen, both distignuished climate scientists.

Mr. Echart's letter and one website I found criticizing Dr. Lindzen lends credibility to Mr. Henderson's observations. It seems pretty clear to me that the AGW people are doing a great deal to suppress competing opinions in re AGW. And that practice throws the whole AGW hypothesis in very, very serious doubt.

Did not the Nazis, Linenists, Maoists, Pol Pot, etc. supress competing opinions? Do not the Castroites of Cuba and the Chavistas in Venezuela supress competing opinions. These AWG folks, as a group, are people to be very, very closely watched because it is clear to me that there intenions are more political than scientific.

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 119
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 8:02 PM EST

Crimson2

"Wow, wally. You are talking about thunderstorms and weather. We are dicussing climate and the greenhouse effect.

More CO2 = more IR retained in the gobal energy budget. What the heck do thunderstorms have to do with the physical properties of the CO2 molecule?"

No, we we are talking about climate change, not the physical properties of the CO2 molecule and thunderstorms are intrinsically connected to both climate change and the greenhouse effect.

I see you couldn't answer my questions. Instead, you come back with sophmoric snide remarks. Let me suggest that you look at the diurnal temperatures (clear sky) of Panama City and Spokane, WA. Both have the same concentration of CO2, but there's a huge difference. Can you say WATER VAPOR?

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 120
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 8:21 PM EST

Crimson2

Incidentely, the Verizon site you scoffed at has a good bit of documentation that obviously went by you:
re: 95% contribution of water vapor:

a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

b. Global Deception: The Exaggeration of the Global Warming Threat
by Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, June 1998
Virginia State Climatologist and Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

c. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Appendix D, Greenhouse Gas Spectral Overlaps and Their Significance
Energy Information Administration; Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

d. Personal Communication-- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
Alfred P. Slone Professor of Meteorology, MIT

e. The Geologic Record and Climate Change
by Dr. Tim Patterson, January 2005
Professor of Geology-- Carleton University
Ottawa, Canada
Alternate link:
f. EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant
by the ecoEnquirer, 2006
Alternate link:

g. Air and Water Issues
by Freedom 21.org, 2005
Citation: Bjorn Lomborg, p. 259. Also: Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling, Jr. The Satanic Gases, Clearing the Air About Global Warming (Washington, DC: CATO Institute, 2000), p. 25.

h. Does CO2 Really Drive Global Warming?
by Dr. Robert Essenhigh, May 2001
Alternate link:

5) Global Climate Change Student Guide
Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences
Manchester Metropolitan University
Chester Street
Manchester
M1 5GD
United Kingdom

6) Global Budgets for Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Anthropogenic Contributions
William C. Trogler, Eric Bruner, Glenn Westwood, Barbara Sawrey, and Patrick Neill
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

7) Methane record and budget
Robert Grumbine

Flag as Offensive

wally Location: UT

Reply # 121
Date: Jul 30, 2007 - 8:52 PM EST

Crimson2

OH GOLLY GEE JUST LOOK AT THAT!

Scientists that don't buy your version of global warming!

Who would have EVER guessed?

Twit!

Flag as Offensive

Fletch Location: NM

Reply # 122
Date: Jul 31, 2007 - 8:25 PM EST

Eckhart

His threats are typical of the Left. If you don't accept the Lefts ravings, they will do their utmost to destroy your career.

Flag as Offensive

phil Location: FL

Reply # 123
Date: Aug 1, 2007 - 10:33 AM EST

DA

you are the living example of the theory of: the longer the post to try to bolster one's agrument the more likely is the poster to be full of beans--not "scientific" but invariably true- btw opne who cites references ad infinitum also fills the bill - you musta been the gleam in the eye of you profs- buit always with your shirtail out LOL - vapid is most suitable.
ad hominem? you betcha - it's all you deserve

Flag as Offensive

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!

Need an account?

LoginLogin

Your Email:

Password:

Get Your Password | Register

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:

Townhall Daily Alert
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
Townhall.com Spotlight
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.

Join The Debate!

Today's Cartoons