Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Paul Driessen :: Townhall.com Columnist
Global Warming Insanity?
by Paul Driessen
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
With unemployment at 10.2%, what will happen by the end of Obama's first term?



“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority,” Marcus Aurelius opined, “but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” An even worse fate would be to end up in minority status and an asylum. Recent developments suggest that this might become the destiny of climate change alarmists.

Now that NASA has corrected its US temperature records, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. Five of the ten hottest years since 1880 were between 1920 and 1940 – and the 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread across seven decades. This suggests natural variation, not a warming trend. Plant and insect remains found at the base of Greenland’s ice sheet indicate that, just 400,000 years ago, the island was blanketed in forests and basking in temperatures perhaps 27 degrees F warmer than today.

Land area temperatures in South America, Africa and Australia have declined slightly over the last few years. Since 1998, sea surface temperatures over much of the world have decreased slightly, while globally averaged atmospheric temperatures have shown no change.

Many US temperature gauges are near air-conditioning exhausts, hot asphalt and other heat sources. Their readings are thus too high and must be revised downward – along with claims about rising temperatures.

Over the past 650,000 years, global temperatures almost always rose or fell first – followed centuries later by changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, as warming oceans exhaled CO2 or cooling seas absorbed the gas. (This inconvenient fact is what Al Gore is referring to when he says the temperature-CO2 relationship “is actually very complicated.”)

More scientists are pointing to solar energy levels, cosmic rays and clouds as determinants of climate – and saying CO2 plays only a minor role. Thousands of scientists have questioned claims that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, and over the past year dozens have publicly switched from believers to skeptics about climate Armageddon theories. There is obviously no consensus on climate change.

Latvia and seven other eastern European countries are threatening legal action against EU decisions to restrict their emissions, as they work to grow their economies after decades of impoverishment under Communism. China and India refuse to sacrifice economic growth to concerns about climate chaos. China has surpassed the US as the world’s leading CO2 emitter – and EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased faster than those in the United States, where both population and economic growth have been substantially higher than in Western Europe.

During the just-concluded UN climate conference in Vienna, a number of industrialized countries rejected binding targets of 25-40% greenhouse gas reductions by 2020 – while a bloc of 77 developing nations said industrialized countries should reduce their emissions 80% by that date.

The response of climate alarmists is fodder for psychological textbooks. Greenpeace says cataclysm skeptics are “climate criminals.” NASA scientist James Hansen calls us “court jesters.” Grist magazine wants “Nuremberg-style war crimes trials.” Robert Kennedy, Jr. says we should be treated like “traitors.”

Phil Jones at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit refused to reveal the methodology for his dire-sounding temperature data. “Why should I make the data available,” he asked, “when your aim is to find something wrong with it?” And Senator Barbara Boxer turned climate hearings into inquisitions for catastrophe skeptics, while Congressman Jim Costa walked out on a witness who pointed out that proposed legislation would dramatically increase energy and food prices, cost millions of jobs, and severely hurt poor families – while doing nothing to stabilize global temperatures.

Newsweek said climate holocaust “deniers” had received $19 million from industry, to subvert the “consensus” it claims exists about global warming. It made no mention of the $50 BILLION that alarmists and other beneficiaries have received since 1990 from governments, foundations and corporations – or of its 1975 article, which declared that scientists are “almost unanimous” in believing that a major cooling trend would usher in reduced agricultural productivity, famines and perhaps even a new Little Ice Age.

(Newsweek contributing editor Robert Samuelson called the global warming "denial machine” article “highly contrived” and based on “discredited” accusations about industry funding.)

Alarmists have blamed global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes, malaria, and even the Minneapolis bridge collapse, terrorism, Italian suicides, teenage drinking and “irritability” in mice. By combining far-fetched speculation with various computer-generated temperature projections and worst-case scenarios, they concoct even more ominous auguries, like this whopper from London’s Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre: Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Paul Driessen is the author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

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

Alex_N writes, 13, 2007 5:47 AM
Alex_N writes, 13, 2007 5:47 AM

Re: 1999 forbes article (a non-scientist's intepretation of a 1998 NOAA draft?): …Official 2001 estimates indicated uptake of only 15% of fossil CO2:

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

Huber claims an article in Science Magazine 10/16/98 “Possibly Vast Greenhouse Gas Sponge Ignites Controversy” claimed we burn 1.6 tons and we uptake 1.7 tons. I can’t get access to it through my library. My failure to get the original article will force me to concede this citation henceforth.

Alex_N writes

The 2000-2006 anomaly image (PART of a series showing a multi-decadal warming trend) is AFTER correction for NASA's error (only affecting the U.S.).

DESKJOCKEY RESPONDS

Two problems. Finding errors is good in that we improve. It is bad because we intend to turn our nation over to a Marxist One World organization based on theory, errors that must still exist and picking snapshots of 6 years out of 55M and saying it is a trend. It is like picking the winner based on 6 minutes of the marathon.

Alex_N writes

Your pet 25 degrees (again): Irrelevent. … Relevant: The relatively stable holocene is changing (rapidly, climatically speaking) without a sufficient natural forcing. An expected response to a CO2 accumulation and it's feedback effects.

DESKJOCKEY

We don’t know what is happening let alone “natural forcing” because we have bogus computer models that are using garbage in garbage out.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html

Alex_N writes

… you get most of your "knowledge" of climatology from misinterpreted (or purposely misrepresented) nonsense on political sites.

DESKJOCKEY WRITES

Pot calling kettle black. Your “logicalscience” website says it best with their mission statement, “defending the scientific consensus of vested interest”.

Rather than attack the sites, and I read your sites without attacking them, why not deal with the issues?

CONTINUED

Regarding the Hansen 300% fraud perpetrated by Michaels, did you bother reading your entire page, namely Roger’s defense? He proves that Hansen clearly was marketing A (Hansen et al 1998, 4117) and Michaels merely referred to it as BUA.

Regarding prediction of freezing, my claim is merely continuation of the 55M year trend. I have made no claim of justification based on the NAS. Rather I cited various articles to show how we went through the same Globull nonsense in the 70’s that was promoted by valid climatologist. If you think about my claim of the ‘70’s it was not proof of freezing based on good science because I've been arguing that good science still doesn’t exist.

Again regarding Mars, my claim is it is as stupid to argue that we understand the heat rise on Mars as to understand it on earth. I said, “The stock market is immensely simpler than trying to figure out this warming trend on earth let alone the warming on Mars where man doesn’t spend much time.”

My point is the utter hubris of man to think he is so darn smart be it Mars or Earth.

Clearly you continually misunderstand my simple points because you have Globull hubris interfering with your processing of my data.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.