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
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Global Hot Air: Part II
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Propaganda campaigns often acquire a life of their own. Politicians who have hitched their wagons to the star of "global warming" cannot admit any doubts on their part, or permit any doubts by others from becoming part of a public debate.

Neither can environmental crusaders, whose whole sense of themselves as saviors of the planet is at stake, as they try to stamp out any views to the contrary.

A recent and revealing example of the ruthless attempts to silence anyone who dares question the global warming crusade began with a "news" story in the British newspaper "The Guardian." It quickly found an echo among American Senators on the left -- Bernard Sanders, an avowed socialist, and John Kerry, Pat Leahy and Dianne Feinstein, who are unavowed.

The headline of the "news" story said it all: "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study." According to "The Guardian," scientists and economists "have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report."

It is a classic notion on the left in general, and of environmentalist zealots in particular, that no one can disagree with them unless they are either uninformed or dishonest. Here they dispose of scientists who are skeptical of the global warming hysteria by depicting them as being bribed by lobbyists for the oil companies.

While such charges may be enough for crusading zealots to wrap themselves ever more tightly in the mantle of virtue, some of us are still old-fashioned enough to want to know the actual facts.

In this case, the fact is that the American Enterprise Institute -- a think tank, not a lobbyist -- did what all kinds of think tanks do, all across the political spectrum, all across the country, and all around the world.

AEI has planned a roundtable discussion of global warming, attended by people with differing views on the subject. That was their fundamental sin, in the eyes of the global warming crowd. They treated this as an issue, rather than a dogma.

Like liberal, conservative, and other think tanks, the American Enterprise Institute pays people who do the work of preparing scholarly papers for presentation at its roundtables. Ten thousand dollars is not an unusual amount and many have received more from other think tanks for similar work.

Enter Senators Sanders, Kerry, Leahy, and Feinstein. In a joint letter to the head of the American Enterprise Institute, they express shock, shock, like the corrupt police official in "Casablanca."

These Senators express "our very serious concerns" about reports that AEI "offered to pay scientists up to $10,000 for questioning the findings" of other scientists. The four Senators express how "saddened" they would be if the reports are true, "by the depths to which some would sink to undermine the scientific consensus" on global warming.

If the reports are true, the Senators continue, "it would highlight the extent to which moneyed interests distort honest scientific and public policy discussions" by "bribing scientists to support a pre-determined agenda."

The Senators ask: "Does your donors' self-interest trump an honest discussion over the well-being of the planet?" They demand that "AEI will publicly apologize for this conduct."

As the late Art Buchwald once said about comedy and farce in Washington, "You can't make that up!"

If it is a bribe to pay people for doing work, then we are all bribed every day, except for those who inherited enough money not to have to work at all. Among those invited to attend the AEI roundtable are some of the same scientists who produced the recent report that politicians, environmentalists, and the media tout as the last word on global warming.

The trump card of the left is that one of the big oil companies contributed money to the American Enterprise Institute -- not as much as one percent of its budget, but enough for a smear.

All think tanks have contributors or they could not exist. But facts carry little weight in smears, even by politicians who question other people's honesty.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate

News Articles On This Topic
 

Where are the global cooling proponents?
In all of these postings, I have yet to see any former proponent of global cooling (circa 1970s) explain why the consensus of their majority have now switched their core beliefs to global warming (circa 2000s). Is it possible that they have no core beliefs and are more likely to swim with whatever is the current trend?

I welcome any responsible comment from one of those who have changed their opinion to explain.

Global Warming Nuts
P.S. I sure could have used about 40 degrees of warming this past week.
Just paid an $800 gas and electric bill. Where is the global warming spending the winter?

Global Warming Nuts
Remind them that one day the Sun will go out.

Imagine how they handle that.


Happy Jake wrote:
"Actually, Bill Clinton DID sign the treaty (which must be done before congress ratifies it). It was only afterward that Congress voted it down 95-0."

That is not quite correct. The Clinton Adminstration signed the treaty (It was AlBore who signed it for the US) but Clinton never submitted the treaty to the Senate. So what was the 95-0 vote then? It was the senate passing a resolution sponsored by Robert Byrd and Chuck Hagle (Senate Resolution 98). This from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol):

"On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[43][44] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[45] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification."

Solution to Global Warming
Or a promising one, anyway.

Go to wikipedia, and type in "iron fertilization". G'head.

If it works, will THAT make everyone happy?

Solution to Global Warming
The solution to Global Warming is easy:

Forbid Liberals from spewing their hot air...

I know- hate the shut downs in a way:
I would LOVE to have a good numbers out bash with somebody capable. It just doesn't happen.

And so I get stuck just getting into the argument, only to have it stop. :(

There isn't a post after mine from either of them. They were able to claim alot, with a bunch of claims and otherwise.

Oh well,

Josh

Climate Change is real
The nature of the Earth's climate is change. It has changed in the past and will change again in the future. However, if you believe that the science of climate change is well understood you live in a real world of fantasy. The single most significant part of our climate, the oceans is the most dynamic and the least understood. We know more about the Moon than we do about the oceans, especially the oceans influence on world climate.

So let's say the Earth is warming and it is all the fault of humans. Do you have any clue what it will cost to fix the problem? Just think humans trying to manipulated something they really don't understand.

The cost to implement the goals already suggested by the global warming advocates will have a huge costs, in tax dollars, in personal economic cost and life style changes. And, the quicker we implement the supposed fixes the more it will cost. And oh by the way, those goals are not considered strenuous enough to decrease the rate of warming.

Humans have survived on Earth by adapting to climate change and this time it will be cheaper to adapt to climate change then it will be to risks trying to "fix" the climate based on the tiny amount of knowledge we presently have.

eon
Your post is textbook material. Outstanding !

Poor senators
Poor pitiful senators who got so offended by whatever wrong AEI did. I hope AEI does not aopologize for doing their job and that those lousy senators would back off.

That being said
Sorry if someone has brought this up already, but I was taking a break from Townhall, so I didn't read this until late.

"These Senators express "our very serious concerns" about reports that AEI "offered to pay scientists up to $10,000 for questioning the findings" of other scientists."

Someone should tell the good senators that scientists question the findings of other scientists all the time. It's called peer review, which is one of the things that makes the scientific process so solid in the first place.

"The four Senators express how 'saddened' they would be if the reports are true, 'by the depths to which some would sink to undermine the scientific consensus' on global warming."

If the purpose of AEI's offer was specifically to undermine the recent report, then they'd have a case. But I checked AEI's website, and they appear to take the possibility of global warming seriously and just wanted to look at the issue honestly. So, to the American Enterprise Institute, from an anthropogenic global warming believer, sorry 'bout that. Looks like you folks just got caught in the crossfire. When people want to take a good look at an issue, especially such an important one, that should be encouraged, not shouted down.

The Skeptic
"Are you conveniently ignoring the most important greenhouse gases? Water vapor (70% of greenhouse effect) and clouds (20% of greenhouse effect)! That leaves 10% C02, and humans at most are responsible for about 25% of total C02 accumulation in the atmosphere…"

Water vapor might account for 70%, but that's the upper end of the estimate (36-70% of global warming). Clouds reflect sunlight (the albedo effect), so they actually work to mitigate global warming. CO2's contribution is estimated to be between 9 and 26%, with methane, ozone, and other gases taking up the rest. Humans are indeed responsible for 25% of the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere, but that level is 25% greater than the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 (280 ppm vs. 380 ppm), so humans are responsible for all of the increase, which is what's causing the problem! It's not the total amount of global warming that worries people, it's the amount of additional global warming over and above what it's been for the past 10,000 years. The human addition of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) is responsible for that.

Who Created the Creator?

.....Bob Doyle...

.....The only way to answer the questions most frequently asked by atheists to disprove the existence of a Creator ...such as "What comes after infinity?" or "Can God create a puzzle that He cannot solve? or a rock so heavy that He cannot lift?" ...is that not everything has a beginning or an end and that not every question has to have an answer ...these are man made concepts ....

.....In other words questions do not automatically provide answers and existence does not automatically assume a beginning or an end ...as an example ...if man sees a perfect circle can he determine a point where it began? ...could it be possible that the Universe is like that circle and that all things in it are designed to operate in never ending cycles? ...

.....these questions have been pondered by philosophers from the beginning of man's recorded history ...it is possible that man's limited intellect will never know all the answers .....COLOSSUS

Climate Science Deniers
Anyone--ANYONE--who tries to shut up those scientists working on theories they don't agree with is a Science Denier.

The Scientific method is absolutely dependent on open inquiry free of political interference.

If you stack up the pile of research grant money from corporate entities whose interest is in disproving human causation for global warming, you get a large pile indeed.

But it's only a sandhill compared to the enormous mountain of cash and power wielded by the side determined to smash freedom and property and the right to contract. The payroll of the global-warming enthusiast side is absolutely vast, and they're grabbing more cash all the time.

Just try to get in on the billions put up for this kind of research, if the theory you're working on is at odds with the state religion of human-caused global warming. If you're one of the lucky ones, you get a $10,000 microgrant from a think tank to participate in a panel discussion.

Meanwhile, hundreds of millions in government funds each year go to the alarmists, who use these vast sums of money stolen from people with productive livelihoods for the purpose of intimidating those very same taxpayers into surrendering more.

I disagree with Sowell. I don't think this is about the ego of the true believers. I think it is a shakedown on a scale to make Jesse Jackson blush.

My own opinion:

I believe there is some warming going on. Or some cooling. I don't know. Whatever the temperature data say. Satellite temperature data show no warming in the past few years, but what do satellites know? Sure, I remember more snow in my childhood in the early 1970s. But I also think my own life expectancy limits my perspective on whether such warming is completely natural for our planet and solar system.

Within human history, there were settlements in Greenland where CROPS WERE GROWN. I don't think we're to the point yet where crops are being grown in Greenland, so we've still got a long way to go just to get back to earth's historical warm point.

Since we're well within historical norms, I fail to see what all the wailing is about--except when I inform my question with the tendencies of all socialists of every stripe in every era to rob their neighbors of their goods and shut down prosperity wherever it is found. Global warming is the brass ring for these people. They think they have the prize within their grasp, so the push is on.

It is ridiculous.

eon
I just copied and pasted your post on 4 consistent themes. That is priceless. It describes the radical leftists perfectly.

The rest of you need to get out and get a copy of "Animal Farm" the book or the movie.

AGW alarmist need to PROVE it
Randygregg: says:
1)“The belief here that the current warming is natural is a scientific hypothesis, to which proof must be given. Where is it? None of you has provided it. Mainstream climatologists, on the other hand, have determined the extent of the natural forcings on the atmosphere and found that greenhouse gas heating is the only mechanism that can account for the warming seen in the last several decades (IPCC TAR v1 ch6). So, I'm interested in seeing your proof.”

You really have no idea what you are taking about do you?

You don’t understand the concept of falsifiability in science do you?

The IPCC reports that there are 12 known forcings in the climate system and 9 of those forcing they state we have ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of (no kidding?!). NO ‘mainstream’ climatologists (or any scientist for that matter) fully understands something as complex as planetary atmospherics and climate.

So, if I was to show you an equation with an unknown variable and I had no way of solving for that variable or, more importantly, didn’t even know the RELATIONSHIP that variable had to other variables, then all I would produce out the equation is JUNK. Here we have 9 poorly understood variables (and their relationships). Therefore, what they produce from their models is JUNK.

The purveyors of these claims (and supporting computer models) approximate, guess, and fudge to come up with an ‘answer’. More to the point, it is such a complex system, and so poorly understood, that no manner of computer power is going to solve it. We don’t need grunt, we need UNDERSTANDING, get it?

Also, you can’t disprove speculation, which basically is what you have here. Just like I can’t disprove Tarot card readings…Why, because it’s not scientific, you can make the answer say whatever you want it to say, there is not clear mechanisms to be tested independently.

Randygregg also says:
“2) Without the baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere, atmospheric temperatures would be about 0C, rather than the 15C it is. Therefore, please prove why a 35% increase in CO2 levels *will not* lead to global warming.”

LOL!

Are you conveniently ignoring the most important greenhouse gases? Water vapor (70% of greenhouse effect) and clouds (20% of greenhouse effect)! That leaves 10% C02, and humans at most are responsible for about 25% of total C02 accumulation in the atmosphere…

Also, evidence clearly shows that at worst C02 has a LOGARYTHMIC effect on global mean temperate. This observation is from the only viable data that show anything about a correlation between global mean temp and C02 changes (which starts from about 1940).

Nice attempt at magic, but YOU are the one that has to prove your ridiculous claims. YOU, and your type, are demanding we spend trillions and fundamentally change our lives. Your extraordinary claims require the extraordinary evidence, for us to undertake extraordinary actions….

But let’s get to the REAL issues here:

Why would we accept a claim that shows a POOR correlation between C02 levels and GW for the past 30years, and NO correlation for the preceding 500,000years? Further, expect for this highly tenuous correlation, there is no evidence AT ALL for linkages between C02 levels and GW for anywhere else across the planet’s entire 4billion+ year history!

Why would we accept the junk output from these computer models that are based on junk inputs and models (e.g. imaginary positive feedback systems, fudged data, wonky statistics and wild guess work)? Why aren’t these models available for INDEPENDENT software audit and validation & verification?

Where is the standard ‘theory of climate’ that can be used to drive models or test speculations of changes in the climate? Hmmm…maybe some aliens can drop it off for us while on their next crop circle development visit!

Why would we accept the claims of a politically motivated UN group (IPCC) which dose NOT apply any scientific rigor to its conclusions, and hides and obfuscates data? What is the scientific basis for a “90% likelihood” that C02 will cause the GW they claim?? What is the scientific process through which this level of confidence was derived?

Why would we accept a flakey hypothesis about exaggerated climate change, when there are at least a half dozen other hypotheses on climate variations that have either more compelling evidence, or a stronger conceptual and explanatory model?

Why indeed…

wiseone wrote about Kyoto
Great post. Evidence that the Kyoto treaty was a disaster from the start. The Senate voted 95-0. Kerry was one of the voters and even offered comments following the defeat.

Yet, that jack*ss just got on Bush recently for not ratifying the Kyoto treaty. Does that moron think Americans are that short of memory cells? I am convinced that Kerry, who may actually be smart (I am not convinced of that either), is a patholigical liar.

I knew a girl in high school who came from a very wealthy family but she had a mental problem: kleptomania. When we would talk I would ask her "why? You got the bucks. Your mom and dad could buy the whole store over three times. Why the penchant for theft?" No reasonable answer ever came.

I believe Kerry is much the same way. He lies and does not know why. I am not even sure he thinks he is fabricating tales. Why has his whole political career been a sham? Lies! He came back and lied about atrocities in Vietnam? He lied all throughout his politicla rise. And he openly lied all the while he was running for prez. I guess he just does not realize how obvious it is.

End of the Thread as we know it?
I see pbjosh just about shut down the lefties on this argument. Way to go, man!!! I learned something too.

Also, I know a local meteorologist and tried to get him, as a joke, to say, "...because of global warming," after every report. Example, "The high today will be minus 100 degrees, and we will get another 50 feet of snow today...because of global warming."

After hearing my proposal, he just laughed and said, "Global warming? What a farce!"

I guess he saw pbjosh's data.

Getting "rid" of greenhouse gasses
Mr. Branson offered, what, $25 million for the person who could get rid of "all" greenhouse gasses. Do these libs know that trees breathe in CO2 and exhale O2? (Thus, if they were serious about controlling "global warming," they would be much more active on "Arbor Day.") Do these idiot libs also know that if you get rid of "all" greenhouse gasses it would be more catastrophic for the globe than "global warming?" Imagine a world without greenhouse gasses where you have to be home or inside someplace every day before the sun goes down or you freeze to death because of the tremendously rapid drop in temperatures well below freezing and then warm up wayyy to hot for us to handle during the day. This is the entire purpose of greenhouse gasses is to trap the heat of the sun and regulate the temperature so the planet does not go through this terrible cycle every single day.

Any 12-year-old with an Earth Science book could give you the 411 on trees and their relationship with CO2 and O2 as well as tell you what the purpose of those evil greenhouse gasses is, unless, of course, the Dept. of Ed. and the NEA have removed that little tidbit of info from the lesson plans in the name of "not screwing up their propaganda efforts."

Pappy Michael- I think he is copying &
pasting talking points from some leftie loser website.

Let me create some talking points of my own...

Let's check out the Weather Channel headlines, shall we?
http://www.weather.com/

-News: 12 deaths blamed on storm

-Blizzard warnings: N.Y. | Mass. | N.H. | Vt. | Maine

-Northeast severe alerts

-Forecast: Bitter cold behind the storm

-Major winter storm blasts the Northeast
8:51 p.m. ET 2/14/07
"The storm responsible for dumping up to 3 feet of snow in Upstate New York will begin to depart the region tonight."

-Video Blog: Seidel and his crew...out in the cold

-Cold blast lasts

-The latest forecast for severe storms

(And of course, it wouldn't be the Weather Channel without a plug for Global Warming):
-"Climate Change: One Degree Science teacher headed to the Arctic for global warming research"







Kyoto timeline
The final draft of the Kyoto protocol was approved by a vote of 120 -7 in December of 1997. The US voted AGAINST this draft despite the fact that Kyoto was Vice President Al Gore's pet project and despite the fact that it was his representatives who negotiated on behalf of the US during the drafting.

The terms of the final draft became 'available' for countries to ratify in March of 1998. However, President Clinton never even presented Kyoto to the Senate for ratification during the 2 years and 10 months that remained in his second term because he knew it would ruin the US economy.

During that time the Senate passed a resolution by a 95-0 vote protesting the wording of the draft because it did not apply equally to all nations. Specifically, there are no restrictions on the CO2 emissions of India or China, two of the world's largest economies (and polluters).

In December of 2000 Bill Clinton signed Kyoto to embellish his 'legacy' as an environmentalist; a typically cynical and politically cowardly move by a man who would not have to deal with (or be blamed for) the consequences of his action.

Shortly after being inaugurated Bush had the honesty and political courage to do what his predecessor didn't; he announced that the Presidential signature assigned to Kyoto was null and void and that Kyoto would not be presented to the Senate for ratification.

The same media that never breathed a word over the Clinton Administration's vote AGAINST this treaty or Clinton's own cowardly neglect and/or refusal to even present the treaty to the Senate for nearly 3 years immediately blasted Bush for having the courage to say Kyoto would not be ratified by the US.

Since then the same media has blamed Bush personally for global warming, which it can't prove, and for hurricane Katrina, which it couldn't predict. It also blamed Bush for several record-breaking hurricanes last season even though they never happened.

This is the same media you are believing when you believe in man-made global warming.

Prof Truth
I see he is using a paragraph he posted on a few other threads.

Too tired or too uncreative to write something fresh and inspiring?

It is sad, like a Moonbat without a cause to fly around.

All of this
And I suspect Gore flew to the Bahamas or somewhere else warm in his fossil fuel burning private jet so he could enjoy a little of the global warming while the rest of us are freezing our tail off.

The Concensus is . . . .
I'm finished trying to reason with the Left. Let 'em fester in their own self-loathing misery. When they come for me and/or mine, I'll have an answer that won't be spoken . . . .

Poot- and don't forget that GW could
come from poots!

And very possibly from Chernobyl.

I also saw a Discovery Channel program about these deep-sea hydrothermal vents that were releasing all manner of toxic fumes, and which heats the surrounding water to 760 degrees F (404 degrees C).
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature6/
...................................

As a side note, there are 300 different species of sea creatures that thrive in the vicinity of these vents that would kill a human being, not only from the heat but also from the poisons that are profusely released into the surrounding ocean.
http://wonderclub.com/WorldWonders/VentsHistory.html
...............................

And get this about the relationship between these hydrothermal vents and CO2:

"Hydrogen sulfide reacts spontaneously with oxygen, so as soon as vent fluids come into contact with seawater, a swift reaction occurs, releasing energy. All that energy would go to waste if it were it not for the microbes. They harness that reaction and use carbon dioxide to make organic compounds that tubeworms, for example, need to live."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/abyss/life/extremes.html
...................................

What is interesting about these hydrothermal vents are called, beyond the possible contribution to Global Warming, is the fact that so many species not only live, but THRIVE in the vicinity of excessively high temperatures and poisons.

This tells me that the hysteria of the Left over a little thing like the temperature going up by ONE LOUSY DEGREE is unfounded.

What the heck are they worried about?

That the planet will come to an end over a little exhaust from SUVs?

Come on, really now!

randy is a lemming
He ignores my comments because he cannot answer.

I will be sure to do likewise to his drivel in future.

Here is a predictor of anyone who wants to take away your liberties/money/property:

1. They present problem X. This problem is widespread, creating misery and is getting worse.
2. They hold all the secret keys to said problems, usually in the way of papers, abstract statistics and the like.
3. Then they tell you it will just require a small sacrifice on your part and everything will be peachy.
4. Over time this is slowly ramped up to a boondoggle of large proportions.
5. Anyone who wishes to roll back said policies doesn't care about the poor or minorities or the environment or world peace or the proletariat..ad nauseum.

Its happened with the income tax, socialist security, Welfare, Public schools..you name it. Same ole playbook each time, following in Marx and Engells's footsteps.

BrianR
Great point. Humans are adaptable, it's why we're numero uno on the globe.

Came across an OUTSTANDING quote by Lincoln on America and posted it on my blog. Give it a read.

(Shameless plug achieved! haha)

Let's simplify this
For the sake of this discussion ONLY, let's grant that humans are causing GW.

So what?

The quality of life is better today than ever before in history. Life spans are longer, more diseases are curable, we've got great stuff, land is arable and productive and growing more so all the time, and the list is endless.

If the temp goes up a degree over the next few decades... so what? We'll adjust, and incorporate the change into our standard of living, just like all throughout history.

OR: We can destroy what we have, to achieve... what? And that's the question that doesn't ever seem to get an answer.

I do believe I've been challenged . . .
Mr. (Ms?) RandyGregg has challenged me to put up proof that no causal link exists between man and global warming. AND, just as I was 'bout to fire back a reply to his query, I noticed that he required an answer in Celcius degrees. Since I'm too stupid to convert from my native degrees Reaumur, I believe you have me stumped. But alas, my compadres pbjosh and stargazer helped pick up the slack.

The only thing I can add to the discussion comes from Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. According to Dr. Michaels, "The warming that will have occurred between 1900 and the time CO2 effectively doubles in the next century will be on the order of 1.0 degree C to 1.5 degree C"

"In other words, temperatures will be a little less than one degree warmer than they are today"

Even according to James E. Hansen, NASA scientist and one of the Global Warming Crowd's biggest advocates, "We predict additional warming in the next 50 years of 0.75 plus or minus 0.25 degrees C, a warming rate of 0.15 plus or minus 0.05 degrees C per decade."

Ooooh, better get out yer water-wings.

Oh and one last thing - it's not a Celcius-based calculation, mind you, just more opinion:

"What's causing this warming? We don't know. As the vice president of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Yury Izrael, wrote bluntly last month, 'There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.' Given the extreme variability of global temperature, warming might simply be statistical noise. It might result from solar and/or volcanic activity. It might be caused by industrial emissions. And it might come from some combination of the three.

here's a link to the entire article if you're inclined to read such things:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6633

Any other questions, there Einstein?



I think the burden of proof is on those
who say that Global Warming is occuring when half the planet can walk outside and see evidence to the contrary.

Provided that they can walk outside and not be frozen to the spot within a few yards of their front door!

I really think that God has a sense of humor, putting the "Warmies" in their place like this.

And they are such fools, they don't even notice!!!

As Dennis Prager says, "being Left means never having to say you're sorry."

ignorance is bliss
professor truth wrote:
"i suggest you visit realclimate.org"

I have. That site is infamous for censoring comments they don't agree with. I see you like to play the guilt by association card, here is one for you. RealClimate was bought and paid for by Environmental Media Services which shares the same address with Fenton Communications. Fenton Communications is a PR firm that has as its clients just about any major environmental organization you can think of. To get people to donate you need to have a crisis, be it real or imagined.

professor truth wrote:
"Your next 'brillliant' thought is to claim a 'liberal, left, or socialist' conspiracy among the 2000 climate scientists in over 100 different countries and all the scientists that are in agreement."

Consensus is what you do in politics, not science. The assertion that all the scientists that worked on the IPCC reports "are in agreement" is more a demonstration of your ignorance then anything else. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a lead author, could hardly be said to be "in agreement". Many prominent skeptics are contributors to the IPCC scientific reports. The belief that "2000 climate scientists" agree is a myth you have swallowed hook line and sinker.

professor truth wrote:
The 'hockey stick' model for temperature change was arrived at by multiple independent tests.

The "multiple independent tests" you refer to are not independent at all. The authors of the so called "multiple independent tests" appear repeatedly over and over again in the different papers. The Wegman report stated:

"A social network analysis that revealed that the small community of paleoclimate researchers appear to review each others work, and reuse many of the same data sets which calls into question the independence of peer-review and temperature reconstruction."

"It is clear that many of the proxies are re-used in most of the papers. It is not surprising that the paper would obtain similar results and so cannot really claim to be independent verifications."

The data used for those "multiple independent tests" is just the same data recycled for each new version. They mostly rely on tree rings which have not been shown to be reliable as a temperature proxy.

professor truth wrote:
"here is the IPCC 2001 summary. These are the best assessments of the world's top climate scientists."

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The "Summary for Policymakers" is approved line by line by government representatives (read bureaucrats) who are not scientists. Anybody that is even marginally familiar with the IPCC process knows the "Summary for Policymakers" is not the scientific report.

Packrat: It happens nearly every time.
Generally the arguement ends about the time I drop real numbers from the IPCC.

Personally I would like somebody to be able to take it further, really stretch it out, come back with a numerical arguement to this, but sadly it doesn't happen much.

Oh well.

Maybe next time.

Josh

PT
Went to the link
They admot thety don't know for sure what's happrning next or if it's man induced.

I note you did not answer pbjosh.
I'll repeat 1 item of his:

"First (from the IPCC TAR):

Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) of CO2 (1800’s) 288ppm. Total as of 1997: 368ppm

Now, the problem most missed is, 68.5ppm is from natural additions, and 12ppm (now 14ppm I think...) is from man-made additions. 3% of the total atmosphere is man made. 15% of the increase, while 85% of the increase is completely natural.

Still, of Human contribution to CO2 total, a whopping 3%. So, if the increase is completely from CO2, and we have contributed to 14% of the increase, then of the .6C of the temperature change, then at most, .084C is from humans. "

Can't stand proof from your own sources I guess.


RandyGregg seeks proof, gives none
While you are challenging other posters to provide "proof", how about providing some "proof" of your own arguments. Nothing that global warming proponents have put forth is "proof", only conjecture and theory. Yet you challenge those who disagree with you to prove a negative. That argument has been used as "proof" that the Loch Ness monster exists. No one has "proven" it doesn't exist, therefore it must exist.

"Scientific facts" used in proponents arguments are based on models of conjecture and computer models, and yes, even these can be peer reveiwed and yet be wrong. Oftentimes they are only as good as a good programmer and a statistician who knows how to skew the data to fit the model of his funding sources desires. Just as recent proponents have called the recent IPCC findings "irrefutable", so were the claims of global cooling, overpopulation, deforestation and a dozen other doomsayers claims of the past decades. Most laughable was a speech I heard by David Suzuki around 1980. He claimed that rain forests were being depleted at a rate of "three football fields every minute". At that rate the rain forests should have been denuded around 1990. Yet most "mainstream" scientists touted his claim.

Plus, there is big money to be made supporting a belief in global warming. Look at all the research dollars pouring in.

BTW - When you present your "proofs", I want to see the methodology used, the peer review process, who composed the peer review board, what is their bias and their source of funding, what was the the language and what assumptions were used in the proposal for the research funding, what theoretical models were used in the research, what data elements were used and how were they collected.

The hockey stick is a statistical joke. I suggest reading "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. Or you could go to http://www.robelle.com/smugbook/stats.html and see a graphic example of why the hockey stick is so deceiving.

Also, check out http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadGreenhouse.html and his bad greenhouse FAQ to see why most greenhouse theory is wrong. He doesn't refer to CO2 or global warming, just states some facts about the atmosphere.

Let me wander in here:
First, glad to see randygregg and Professor Truth are still here for the debate.

Let me drop in my reasoning for this, using the numbers from the IPCC 1997 TAR and the EPA related numbers off of that.

This fills out my argument that the amount of human generated CO2 emissions are insignificant. These are good hard numbers, but this is the same that allot of us skeptics look at also. So feel free to pick at it in argument.

First (from the IPCC TAR):

Pre-Industrial Baseline (PIB) of CO2 (1800’s) 288ppm. Total as of 1997: 368ppm

Now, the problem most missed is, 68.5ppm is from natural additions, and 12ppm (now 14ppm I think...) is from man-made additions. 3% of the total atmosphere is man made. 15% of the increase, while 85% of the increase is completely natural.

Still, of Human contribution to CO2 total, a whopping 3%. So, if the increase is completely from CO2, and we have contributed to 14% of the increase, then of the .6C of the temperature change, then at most, .084C is from humans.

That is just beginning of the food for thought on this.

But, no argument about CO2 is really complete without water Vapor. See, water absorbs IR radiation along the same spectrum as CO2. Water Vapor also has the same Global Warming Potential or Multiplier as CO2. So, it absorbs the same spectrum, at the same rate as CO2. To the blackbody radiation that is emitted by earth and trapped, water is seen as no different than CO2.

Oh, didn’t hear you guys mention water vapor. Maybe because, well, I don’t hear about it often either. You actually have to look for it in most media claims, or even in the IPCC. Sad, because Water Vapor is the largest Greenhouse gas, and it isn’t even our fault.

How much of the Greenhouse Effect is from Water Vapor? Oh, this might hurt:

95%

Yup. 95% of the GHE is from water vapor. Of that, CO2 is 3.618% of the total, and of that, a whopping .117% is from TOTAL human CO2 emissions.

Oh boy. Tiny tiny tiny. In other words, 99.88% is still flipping natural.

If humans double the amount of CO2 we have already put into the atmosphere, say, till we hit 6%, that is still damn short of the doubling of CO2 that is forecast.

So, thoughts guys?

Josh

RandyGregg
"MStone, you seem not to know even the first thing about the hockey stick graph. If you did you'd know it only goes back to about the year 0, which does not include the time period of the last Ice Age."

Nice try, but you're distorting my point. Can yoiu not make your own arguments without distorting your opponents'? There are several "hockey stick" graphs floating around, none of which I suggested go back 10,000 years. However, they do ignore clear historical and archeological evidence of routine shifts in global climate over the last several centuries.

They represent an attempt to ESTIMATE temperatures based on physical evidence, like tree rings and coral growth. They are based on the apparent correlation between warmth and growth, but careful scientists should know that correlation does not imply causation. In other words, the estimates may or may not be accurate.

And since they contradict historical evidence of large-scale climate change, they're open to question.

And the "local phenomenon" argument doesn't work when one considers how widespread the shifts were.

Another Peer Review
Was covered in the movie Inherit the Wind.

Hot Air
Y'all Liberals crack me up, all y'all !

drive byposting
Your post about the "new economy" and the west coast reads like my 10 year old issue of Wired with Burning Man on the cover. That talk about Al Gore is sooo 2000. Sounds like you've been driving in one place for a while. Maybe the last "new economy" bubble burst addled your brain.

The reason Ford and GM are going to be passed by car-makers like Toyota (wow, 110 year old "new economy" business) is because of liberally supported unions and all the crap that came with it. Guess GM could be called "new economy", since their main business seems to be that of a health insurance company.

Like the sorry state of welfare before the reform legislation of the '90's, liberals seem blind to where their policies have led. We'd be powered to large degree by nuclear plants by now were it not for liberal thought on all things nuclear.

The corporate posturing you speak of regarding green issues is also practiced by BP. Even McDonald's comes across as health-conscious regarding their customers dietary habits, all the while selling the same old junk.

Maybe you are competing with Loyal Democrat as a satirist, and if so, you got me suckered. Well done!

My calculation
I can't answer for anyone but myself, but my calculations for carbon tripling indicate a reduction in temperature of .00000001 c over 1 million years. And I will demonstrate my accuracy as effectively as anyone who disagrees with my calculations.

Little Greggie
Loves Peer reviewed things. You know, Gallileo was peer reviewed and his materials were rejected. Tesla was peer reviewed and laughed at. Einstein was peer reviewed and until a few brave people proved it, he could not be published.

Clue for you sir. When you say "peer reviewed" you are saying "approved by the authorities". There is a lot of money from governments and others that will pay for global warming "proofs" and very little on the other side.

I can (given a half hour) name a dozen publications that were rejected by "peer review" simply because they did not match current dogma.

Evidence
poot writes:
> There is STILL no credible evidence
> that global warming is man-made.

So poot, what does *your* calculation show for the atmosphere's climate sensitivity--the expected temperature increase for a CO2 doubling? Please give your answer in degrees Celsius.

Global Cooling
cattywampus writes:
> Peer review? Assuming you're right and the global > cooling guessers weren't "peer review" anointed
> they weren't to be believed....yet they
> were...hmmmmm.

Who, exactly, believed them?

And I take by your answer that you *cannot* produce any peer-reviewed publications that put forth the idea of global cooling?

> Since when has a"peer review" been the
> standard for credibility?

It is the first step towards scientific credibility -- any scientist can tell you that. Peer review does not mean an article is correct, it means it is not obviously wrong. There are levels of credibility. That's why the IPCC's scientific statements are so well respected by the scientific community.

Drivebycowpie
Yikes.

Where to start? Maybe I'll skip around and have some fun.

"Al Gore has been touring the world selling his ideas and they then made his sales pitch into a movie. In a market place that would be called *competition*. Gore is being very competitive about *selling* his idea."

-- He hasn't made more than $10,000 has he? Because that would, you know, give him a "conflict of interest" as a paid lackey.

"Sowell is busy emitting hot air for the bleating conservative sheep who think liberals are socialists and communists."

-- Actually we see it more as a sliding scale.

"Well, liberals are laughing all the way to the bank and will have no regrets see you all in their rear view mirrors."

-- *cough* *cough* I can't see you through all this dust!


"Don't be too surprised when the liberals take over the energy companies."

-- Actually, we wouldn't be surprised at all. Hillary has already proposed taking Exxon's profits and putting them to a better government-directed use. Say, does that make her a liberal or a socialist?



"Al Gore has a house in San Francisco. Al Gore sits on the board of Apple Computer. Al Gore is participating in the new economy."

-- Hey man, Al Gore INVENTED the new economy.


"It is liberals who fuel the Interent."

-- It is Al Gore whe invented the 'Interent.'


"...energy prices are going to increase 10 fold in the next decades."

-- Yeah, see, we're trying to stop you from doing that without having a good reason. In any case, geothermal plants cost 10c per kilowatt but are expected to fall to 5c within a decade. Wind farms are now as low as 3c, but are typically as high as 9c. Nuclear power is also in the middle of that range. Currently, I think (from memory) that coal costs around 2c per kilowatt. What's going to drive those costs up 10x, or are you simply going to plug in as many decades as you need?


"Why do you think Toyota is going to put Ford out of business."

-- I think you need a question mark there? The answer is...wait I know this one...their ONIONS are killing them!


"These new liberals do not believe in Washington. They believe in innovation and Google, SUN, Microsoft, Intel, AMD are going to doing what you all say you believe in, making changes using the private sector by acting on global warming and energy problems using by excellent market decisions and not relying on Washington."

-- I'll bet all my donuts that conservatives have less faith in Washington than do liberals. And then I'll double my money betting that the alarmists WILL rely on Washington to force through their agenda.

randygregg
Consensus does not equal scientific fact.

Correlation does not equal causation.

There is STILL no credible evidence that global warming is man-made.

Even if you could directly link global warming to man-made activity, what do you propose we do about it?

Sign Kyoto?

The Marxist agenda marches on under the banner du jour, dragging along with it the Useful Idiots of the Left; hysterics all. Is it any wonder that those of us who yearn for freedom in a capitalist society don't believe a word coming from the pie-holes of the alarmists?

Your lack of "intellectual curiosity" (there's a phrase the Left love to fling around) is amazing to me. I don't want to die any more than anyone else due to calamitous climatological upheaval, so what's my agenda? Big Business? Big Oil? Big Hat? Big Brain?

The problem is that the hysterical loony left have cried wolf so many times that those of us with discerning minds tend to ask for proof before we go crashing the economy of the U.S. or the world for that matter.

We've seen how the hands of the social engineers have brought misery and suffering upon vast populations throughout the last century. We are jaded and cynical. We don't believe a word you say. It's that simple.

Population Explosion?
Global Cooling?
Heterosexual Aids Epidemic?
Nuclear Winter?
Global Warming?
What’s Next?

DavidM
DavidM writes:
> Still can't produce the 3 proofs I outlined huh?

I'm sorry, DavidM, I really haven't been paying much attention to you. Other queries seem more soundly formed, and a person only has so much time. What is it again that you want?

Hockey Puck
So, the hockey stick is not right, yes it is. This scientist has proof that it is wrong, this one says he has proof it is right. Sigh. That sounds like the debate is over to me....

The problem is that this is a religious test to the left as much as they claim evolution is one for the right. Facts don't matter, just true belief. And that is what this article was about.

global cooling
Peer review? Assuming you're right and the global cooling guessers weren't "peer review" anointed they weren't to be believed....yet they were...hmmmmm. Were the season 2005 hurricane guessers "peer reviewed"? Since when has a"peer review" been the standard for credibility?

Your bar isn't very high.

Are they liberal??
driveby posting writes that the new millionaires are the new liberals and that they don't turn to the government to get things done. That doesn't sound liberal. Liberals want the government to take care everything. Actually, if it is really true that these new liberals don't turn to the government, then they sound like a classic 16th century liberal.
Steve

Horney Vouyer
Says there are "workable solutions". Bzzzz. Wrong answer.

If we meet all of the highly restrictive Kyoto rules, we only slow down the greenhouse "crisis". We don't stop it. In fact, we don't slow it all that darn much. If we stopped ALL industrial production of CO2, the models show a continued warming.....

IF you really believe in this scare, you should be seeking solutions to precipitate out the carbon so we can get it to the "right" level. If we know how to effectively do that, we do not have to slow the emission of CO2, just take more out of the atmosphere and we all can be happy and love each other.

randy
Still can't produce the 3 proofs I outlined huh?

Til then you are selling snake oil.

Hockey Stick
Husker Jeff writes:
> Actually, the hockey stick graph as presented
> goes back to 1000 AD.

The original hockey stick graph went back 600 years (Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K.Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, 392, 779-787, 1998). Mann and Jones later augmented this to go back 2000 years.

> This has been generally accepted and the hockey
> stick graph is no longer included in any
> reliable publications.

McKitrick & McIntyre's analysis isn't generally accepted by the climate community--at least, not by the scientists I've talked to and asked about it. Moreover, there are at least a half-dozen independent analyses that all give the same result as the original MBH calculation.

Solutions
CC writes:
> None of the believers in AGW have proposed ANY
> workable solutions.

Of course they have--you need to educate yourself. First is to conserve energy. Second is a cap-and-trade carbon program such as the one that has helped to reduce acid rain. Third is to begin to significantly adopt green technologies: wind, solar, etc. Fourth is a heavy investment in new, green, clean, carbon-free technologies.

> Their agenda is to work the uninformed and
> unthinking into a panic so they will give over
> all their freedoms to the government (run by the > Left) to solve this science fiction of a
> problem.

The fact that you believe this says volumes more about your own paranoia than it does about anything anyone concerned about AGW has said.

The horny watchman
Tells us that the hockey stick goes back to the year zero. Hmmmm. It went in Christian dating from 1 BC to 1 AD. In Jewish dating this is 5000 and some years since the beginning of the universe. Which calendar?

Actually, the hockey stick graph as presented goes back to 1000 AD. As presented, it shows from both the original and the most current that the temperature is pretty constant if not below the average. However, a mechanized measurement showed a huge jump at the end. Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick claimed various errors in the methodology of Mann et al. (1998) and that the MBH method when tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a hockey stick shaped first principal component. This has been generally accepted and the hockey stick graph is no longer included in any reliable publications.

Global Cooling
cattywampus writes:
> You agree though the scientist gods
> were wrong on the global cooling
> projections...no matter how many there were?

Those (few) scientists were reacting to the scientific data of their day. New data has come in in the last 30 years, of course. All sciences have changed considerably in the last 30 years--particle physics, genetics, microbiology, economics.

I think I've heard it said that there wasn't even one peer-reviewed publication predicting global cooling. Can you point to one?

Futile Thinking
I just can't seem to work myself into hysterics over the POSSIBILITY that mandkind's everyday activities are warming our planet. None of the believers in AGW have proposed ANY workable solutions. Their agenda is to work the uninformed and unthinking into a panic so they will give over all their freedoms to the government (run by the Left) to solve this science fiction of a problem. Mankind has caused a lot more harm to our world after the FALL than just polluting the atmosphere. The irony is the Left will conveinently ignore the real, tangible problems that could be solved in favor of one they can't do anything about.

About the $10000
My point on the $10,000 was that it was too small an amount when you think about how much money global warming research costs. If you're a charlattan, in this case, someone willing to craft opinions soley for money then you would starve to death by making sure you only got a single relatively small paycheck.

global cooling
randygregg

You agree though the scientist gods were wrong on the global cooling projections...no matter how many there were?

And just how many scientist gods make a consensus, and why are you and alot of other people so eager to accept what they're saying almost without question?

Articles of faith
.
It's strange that the same people who are absolutely sure, as an article of faith, that the little "hockey puck" up-tick of global temperature is caused by man, but are completely unconcerned about the dramatic downturn in American student academic scores -- undoubtedly because that same faith tells them that downturn is not caused by any man-made disaster in the educational system, and any tampering will make things worse. Never mind it will upset the "economy" of the Educational Industrial Complex.

Two Proofs Needed
Two Proofs Needed
Skeptics basically need to address two points and provide two proofs backing their case:

1) The belief here that the current warming is natural is a scientific hypothesis, to which proof must be given.

Not only is the earth "warming" but also the other planets, specifically Mars. There is also data that the Sun itself is "warmer". This appears to mitigate the claim of human caused global warming or perhaps it proves that we have "secret" colonies on the other planets depending on your point of view.

2) Without the baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere, atmospheric temperatures would be about 0C, rather than the 15C it is. Therefore, please prove why a 35% increase in CO2 levels *will not* lead to global warming.

The problem with your assumption is that the CO2 level increase is directly proportional to the heat increasing (direct line/linkage). Since the amount of CO2 (and all other "trace" gases = 1%) in the atmosphere is small in comparison to nitrogen (78%) and even oxygen (21%), this makes the effect of an increase minimal and not on a direct 1 to 1 basis. Even a 35% increase of .0002 only equals .00027 with no data on which gas is minimized by .00007. If the minimized gas is another of the trace gases that compose the greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, water vapour and ozone) then the effect is neutralized.

Hockey Stick graph
MStone writes:
> The "hockey stick" diagram ignores all of this
> variation and presents the climate during these
> historical periods as a straight line.

The hockey stick calculation does not "ignore" anything. It uses all available proxies to do a temperature reconstruction. It finds that the Medievel Warm Period and Little Ice Age were largely European phenomena that were not experienced globally.

Hockey Stick
MStone writes:
> The "hockey stick" graph you accept so
> eagerly is contradicted by the historical
> record, which clearly shows shifts in
> climate. It was the ending of the last
> major Ice Age that set the conditions
> allowing mankind to develop agriculture,
> domesticate animals, and start developing the
> villages that would eventually grow into
> civilization.

MStone, you seem not to know even the first thing about the hockey stick graph. If you did you'd know it only goes back to about the year 0, which does not include the time period of the last Ice Age.