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
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Global Hot Air: Part III
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?


If you take the mainstream media seriously, you might think that every important scientist believes that "global warming" poses a great threat, and that we need to make drastic changes in the way we live, in order to avoid catastrophes to the environment, to various species, and to ourselves.

The media play a key role in perpetuating such beliefs. Often they seize upon every heat wave to hype global warming, but see no implications in record-setting cold weather, such as many places have been experiencing lately.

Remember how the unusually large number of hurricanes a couple of years ago was hyped in the media as being a result of global warming, with more such hurricanes being predicted to return the following year and the years thereafter?

But, when not one hurricane struck the United States all last year, the media had little or nothing to say about the false predictions they had hyped. It's heads I win and tails you lose.

Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates? Yes, there are.

There is Dr. S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled "Hot Talk, Cold Science." More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years."

There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries -- and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.

Other serious scientists who are not on the global warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen.

His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically.

Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats -- as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.

You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having "misstatements and errors" that he calls "egregious."

A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being "often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it." It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet.

Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.

The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags.

Anyone who remembers the 1970s should remember the Club of Rome report that was supposed to be the last word on economic growth grinding to a halt, "overpopulation" and a rapidly approaching era of mass starvation in the 1980s.

In reality, the 1980s saw increased economic growth around the world and, far from mass starvation, an increase in obesity and agricultural surpluses in many countries. But much of the media went for the Club of Rome report and hyped the hysteria.

Many in the media resent any suggestion that they are either shilling for an ideological agenda or hyping whatever will sell newspapers or get higher ratings on TV.

Here is their chance to check out some heavyweight scientists specializing in weather and climate, instead of taking Al Gore's movie or the pronouncements of government bureaucrats and politicians as the last word.

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
 

GW
The Earth is 70% water. That leaves 30% of the earth's surface we could inhabit. However, the people don't inhabit all of the land. In the US I read it is something like 30% of the land in the US is occupied. If that is the average for every country then only 10% of the earth's surface has people on it.

All of the global alarmist answer why was the earth warmer 1500 years ago than it is today? The Vikings farmed in Greenland. Also, in prehistoric times the earth is always depicted has a lot hotter than it is today. Why? And if we had a mini ice age in the 70s wouldn't the earth warm up coming out of an ice age?

name dropping
Hmm, I wonder what the "name one real scientist who believes in this" crowd will go after now. There's still the shibboleth that once one has been paid one time by private enterprise one is a shill and all previous experience and current arguements no longer count for anything. (The dame does not apply to those funded by government, NGO's, or private foundations or advocacy groups). There's still lots of room for condescending "you couldn't understand anyways" without any bothering to state which individuals have proven a point for their side. And of course there will be those who chose to ignore factual posts by other readers or posts from previous days and will rehash the old swill as though it's holy writ.

Still another case of the The Vision of the Annointed. An excellent read for those who aren't victims of cranial-rectal impactions.

What? Common sense???
I really want to wait and hear all the arguments and positions before I abandon my lifestyle so the billion plus citizens of China and India can leave me, and America, in the dust.

Despite the protests of some I am not convinced that humans have had any meaningful involvement in the miniscule increase in global temperature over the last 100 years. Or what it may mean if continued for another few hundred years.

Using selected statistics to bash what is now become a political position, in the press anyway, is just nonsense. Totally a waste of type.

It is simply disgusting that name callingand pigieon

oops!! Hit the wrong key!
So let me clean this up......

Lets see another decade go by, maybe two and take a slow look at this stuff.

I swear, and many have voiced this already, that 30 years ago we were told we were out of oil and looking to hydrophonics to grow our food in caves. The next Ice Age was upon us.

Nutballs abound and the press, or MSM if you wish, are only too eager to alarm us.

But please, take that boob Al GHore out of this. The poor man flunked out of Seminary School, for god's sake! How hard is that to pass?

Greedy Chicken Littles
I wonder how many of the Chicken Littles are on the Global Warming gravy train.

Scientists are dumb.
Scientists, MIT, big deal. Dr. Sowell makes reference to a bunch of unknowns, while conveniently omitting the names of those that do support the man made global warming theory. Sowell quotes some unknown guy named Dr. Singer that is supposed to have some sort of wheatherology degree or some such. How about Brad Pitt? He believes in global warming, and he makes a lot more movies that this Singer guy has.

Sowell then goes on to tell us the opinions of this MIT dude named Lindzen. Well, anybody can get into MIT, but not everybody can get movie roles like Keanu Reeves does. Lindzen is skeptical of global warming theories, Reeves believes in them. MIT or MGM, you decide.

Finally, there are a boatload of actors and singers that are participating in a global warming "Aid for Africa" kind of thing. Most of those stars never even had to finish high school in order to become millionaires, whereas these scientist clowns had to spend 18 or 20 years in scientific based universities just to earn a living. So who are you going to have more faith in, an 8th grade dropout that is famous, or some "educated" (la de da) guys that haven't even appeared on Letterman?


Global Furbies
I am glad Thomas pressed on with Hot Air Version 3.0, but, alas, I do not think it will quiet those hopped up on GW koolaide.

I am reasonably certain Prof Truth will once again post his Furbie brain-powered paragraph "debunking" the Deniers of Global Warming.

To be sure, the Mass Hysteria Media will continue to play Global Warming For All, as long as they think it will sell.

Absolute Brilliance
"Are there serious scientists who specialize in weather and climate who have serious doubts about the doomsday scenarios being pushed by global warming advocates?"

I wish I had written this. It encapsulates my entire gripe with the "Everybody knows the Earth is warming, and that Man has caused it" argument, and my personal favorite about "Not one peer-reviewed paper counters global warming". When I hear these things, I think "Then science is dead". If I, as a layperson, can discover a disturbing lack of scientific rigor in the current climate "science" (incomplete and inadequate data, lack of a control, and a staunch refusal to consider alternative mechanisms), then any serious scientist should be appalled. As the recent claims of global warming being "proven" grew, I began to doubt the existence of serious scientists at all.

Finally, finally, finally some scientific voices are speaking out, and are being threatened with ostracism, and loss of professional credentials (which equates to loss of livlihood). Do the people who make these threats think that this helps their case?

I don't know (or particularly care) about the rest of the world, but from my own personal and Internet discussions with people from the US, most seem hostile to the notion of human-induced climate change. They make generally excellent points, ranging from questions about the margin of error of the Global Mean Temperature (and the methods used to obtain the GMT), to casting doubt on the motivations of proponents of climate change theory. In short, the people who don't believe it are well-informed (which is harder than it should be, thanks to the Media), and they can articulate their case in a way that makes the Media's reporting look amaturish.


GW
Living in hurricane territory I remember last year well. There was an early storm and all of the news media were hitting hard about how bad a year we would have and the first storm was a big warning. Then the storm season fizzled and not another word was said about the non-existent hurricane season.

An observation, if you will.
When I go to bed at 3 am, it is cold and dark.
When I wake up at about 10 am it is warm and light. I think it is called the SUN.

Sure this is anecdotal evidence, but I still think if the SUN up in the sky (or out in space) can raise the temperature by as much as 50 degrees in 12 hours, it can d@mn well raise it 1-5 degrees in a decade!

Just gotta say.........
This is getting good.

I really enjoyed the posts on this subject over the last few weeks and have gleaned a wealth of information.

It has really helped me kick the snot out of letters to the editor locally.

Thank you everyone, you have been great. Nutballs included as they prepare me for the fight.

And be sure to order an icemaker next time you replace your refrigerator. It will be a object of miracles to your grandchildren.

Hey professor truth
nice post.

So it got cooler after 1998 and took 8 years to recover the temperature?

THAT settles it! The climate is following my average weight per year.

Proffessor Truth
If you are going to cut and paste your blather from some other lefty site, how about formatting it so that is easier to read. I just skipped it all after the 1st paragraph. I have already enough about the Hockey Stick graph to know that it was a blatent falsification. In any other world not controlled by a leftist media the proponents of this mess would have been castigated as frauds and laughed at or prosecuted.

Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents
I wrote about this topic on Global Hot Air II, and thought it was worth repeating.

I wonder why none of the "Warmies" never include these thermal vents in the possible causes for that WHOPPING one degree.

Hydrothermal Vents are like underwater geysers that spew 750+ degree(F) water into the ocean.
Some of the vents have "smokestacks," and release toxic iron and sulfide fumes. These are called "black smokers" and are the hottest of the Vents.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0010/feature6/
http://www.ocean.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/geology/vents.html

Hydrothermal Vents are caused by the shifting of the earth's underwater plates, which causes fissures to open up.
http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_hydrothermal.htm

In spite of the high heat and toxic minerals, a large number of sea creatures make a home at the vents, thanks to special bacteria that performs chemosynthesis instead of photosynthesis.
http://www.seasky.org/monsters/sea7a6.html

One of the most interesting things about the vents is the fact that they produce 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

So what does this have to do with Global Warming? If the sea temperatures have gone up by one degree, don't you think these vents would contribute to it just a little.

Those of you who don't think so never sat in a Jacuzzi!

I'm sure we will here more today from
our resident troll about science from his peer reviewed experts that he has personally talked to. We will here that the experts that we link to support arguments are not recognized by the experts that he follows, namely the UN panel of peer reviewed politicians. We will hear that he is THE expert and that we are “deniers” of the true religious faith of GW (true). We will here that the medieval Warming period is limited to Europe and thus is NOT global. This is the latest from the AGW worshipers.

Well, here some more “scientific” stuff you can go through. The first one is a site that started a scientist petition apposed to the UN’s AGW crowd. So far they have 20,000 signatures from scientists. I guess this outweighs the “’consensus of 2000 scientists” from the UN. The second is a well written article that includes data showing GW that confounds the CO2 theories. In additon it shows a graph of the Sargasso Sea surface temperatures that confirms the Medieval Warming period outside of Europe.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/06-14-2004/science.htm

To Mountain Rose
Good morning, or is it good evening for you?

the "professor" and the hockey puck

Hey Prof!

I think the hockey puck is YOU!

Hi Vic!
It is 12:27am here in L.A.

I went to bed around 9:30, fell asleep and then woke up. I hope to fall asleep again soon.

Think I will read Professor Lie's post... it looks like a real snoozer!

The formatting
alone will put you to sleep.

Good Night and don't let the GW bugs bite

Professor- oh yeah NASA
weren't they those geniuses that hired that crazed stalker astronaut who wore diapers on the way to a murder?

Think I'll REALLY pay attention to them!

Yeah, right!

Professor Spam
Why have your two latest "contributions" to the discussion been cut 'n paste stuff that was longer in word count and page space than the original column?

I seriously doubt that anyone here remembers (or in my case, bothered to find out) what the "hockey stick" model of climate change has to do with the price of beans. I don't seem to recall Dr. Sowell mentioning it in any of the 3 columns of this topic, not that that has stopped you from repeating it, mantra-like in each of your (for lack of a better word) responses.

Nobody here is buying what you're selling, and while fiscal conservatives control more than 40 seats in the Senate, we won't be forced to do so.

Oh come on, Professor Spam!
How does the NASA story have anything to do with refuting the solar explanation of climate change?

No one is saying that the 11 year cycles are the cause of climate change. The sun goes through periods of increased and decreased activity on far longer timespans than the 11 year cycle.

It's a fact! the Earth is warming.
And in fact, it is slowly dying! ALL Scientist know this. Of course it won't happen for several million years but it will happen. Our closest star, the Sun, is burning itself out. As it consumes itself of all fuel it will begin to swell to gigantic size burning up all the planets in our solar system before collapsing into a White Dwarf. And there is not a thing the puny human race can do about it.

In the meantime, the earth will continue it's normal cycles of climatic change as it's orbit swings wide and then closer to the Sun. While wobbling on it's axis. This will cause hot and cold areas on the surface of the planet. Humans will have nothing to do with it. Nor can they do a thing to stop it.

The very best a human being can do is not mess in our own nest. We should all be concerned about clean air and water.

But for the self-serving politicians and eviro-wackos to blame these normal cycles on the human race shows a lack of knowledge and flat out lying to use as a scare tactic so the bureaucrats can scare people into approving their new heavy tax's and regulations.

I have to laugh when I hear "The Polar Bears Will Drown!" as the ice melts. It's a 'swimming bear' for gripes sake! It has alway swam between ice-flows while hunting seals. If the ice flows should disappear altogether it would just end up on land and make it easier for it to catch seals as they to will have to come ashore in herds.

It is the height of arrogance
to imagine that the planet that sustains us somehow needs our help to survive and it is arrogance, not fear, that drives those at the forefront of the GW movement.

Just a thought...
ROTFLMAO!!! A few weeks ago the news reported that NY was in a deep freeze.(Global warming,OMG!) Well, I seem to remember that when I walked to school in sub-freezing temperatures and my nose stuck togther with every breath, (gasp!) it WAS winter!!!! Imagine that...it was Bush's fault even before he got to be President!!!

good posts
I like listening to Vic and others but ranjo65 said it best. How much pride we have thinking that we can fix this whole thing, if in fact it exists (which I do not believe exists).

I was not entirely sure about the whole thing since this is not my field of expertise, nor does it interest me much, but when Al Gore became its spokeperson, I knew it was all whooey!

Maybe Al could stop eating so many hamburgers and passing all that gas, lose some weight and take it easy on the speeches. A vast majority of the gas released by his gapping maw must account for at least 75% of green house gases in our atmosphere.

Real Climate Science
There is a debate among real climate scientists. Two good sources to tap into it are climatesci.colorado.edu and http://www.fraserinstitute.ca. The Fraser Institute "Independent Summary for Policymakers supports Dr. Sowells comments and had lots of scientific credibility.

pasted spam
1 question, Professor Spruce: since the NASA article you posted was from 2001 and was a prediction of what is coming (rather than an observation like "it was high but now it's low"), does that mean that prediction has a higher value in your estimation than fact? Is that why you're a supporter of GW?

{note to self - this is a bad habit to get into. Don't feed the trolls}

I'm off to work, so can't respond to any further posts. After all, all that lovely coal can't get out of the ground by itself.

ranjo65
I have been saying that human arrogance is the greatest problem with the human race for a long time. The closed mindedness of the GW cult is mind-boggling as I posted a link in both of the first 2 installments that "prove" that Jupiter and its moons are warming also and therefore the warming of earth is simply not of human origin.

Unless the moonbats can provide evidence of SUVs on Jupiter or its moons, I guess they will have to come up with another bogeyman to scare us with. How else can they get people to voluntarily follow their BS like sheeple if they let them know the truth.

Be careful, Al:
I am going to beat Perfesser Ruth to the punch in informing you that the "Fraser Institute" is an evil, non-peer reviewed, lying, right-wing shill for Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Haliburton, George Bush, Hitler, Satan, and Jerry Falwell.

Nothing they say can be believed by real scientists.

Prof T****
From the report you qouted
"the 2006 annual average temperature was 55 degrees F—2.2 degrees F (1.2 degrees C) above the 20th Century mean and 0.07 degrees F (0.04 degrees C) warmer than 1998. NOAA originally estimated in mid-December that the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States would likely be 2 degrees F (1.1 degrees C) above the 20th Century mean, which would have made 2006 the third warmest year on record, slightly cooler than 1998 and 1934, according to preliminary data. "

OMG!! 2.2 degrees above the mean for the whole century. COOLER than 1934 and 1998.

Thanks Shrinque, I needed that
Obviously the only way to improve science is to vilify and decertify all skeptics. Only then can we agree on the "TRUTH"

"Spotted Owl" on Steroids
This is all perfectly understandable and sensible if you realize that the Anthrogenic Global Warming Theoru dogma (AGWT) is all having our energy use and virtually everything else rationed and arbitrarily regulated by a totalitarian de facto world government purely for the sake of its own superior vision and empowerment of its elite leadership. That's where all the proposals, most of which couldn't do a darn thing about AGWT even if it were true (& most supporters admit it) inevitably take us. Kyoto? Energy rationiong, and an international arbitration board to adjudge the disagreements and referee compliance, while Red China erects 2200 coal-fired power plants with impunity. Carbon credits? We're gonna pay third-world tinpot dictatorships to stay third-world, wonder how soon Bono and Geldof start agitating about that?

Everyone is quick to allege that someone is in the pay of the energy industry etc when they question AGWT, but no one ever questions the motivations and biases behind the grants most research scientists live on, if they come from government or liberal green institutions. The AGWT proponents such as the IPCC are firmly in the pockets of the biggest special interests of all: aspiring world totalitarians such as the United Nations.

Remember the "Spotted Owl" controversy and how it turned out that spotted owl protection on highly questionable premises was really a proxy for shutting down logging in the Pacific Northwest? The dogmatic acceptance of AGWT, as a premise for imposing the Vision of the Anointed, will be a proxy for giving the elite class unlimited power over every apsect of our lives. We don't even insist that "solutions" have any rational connection to the alleged science of the theory at all, therefore they can arbitrarily twist the 'science' to suit whatever they want in any gven situation, just like every heat wave proves AGWT while every cold snap is an anomaly.

Science Article on Oligocene Climate
I recently read this article in the peer reviewed journal Science:

Palike H, et al.
Science. 2006 Dec 22;314(5807):1894-8
The heartbeat of the Oligocene climate system.

One can read the abstract here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17185595&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

I do not claim to be a climate scientist, though I do have a Ph.D. in the sciences. The scientists use carbon and oxygen isotope levels as proxy measures for the global climate over a 13 million year interval. These measurements were taken from a site in the deep pacific ocean well distant from land and in the large reservoir that is the pacific ocean. The authors acknowlege that no single site is perfect, but this site can be "regarded as those most closely resembling globally averaged temperature and ice-volume conditions"

**********FINAL CONCLUSION BY THE AUTHORS******
Global carbon cycle implications. Earth seems to "breathe" on time scales ranging from the annual to the orbital. We hypothesize that in all cases these cycles are driven by the expansion and contraction of biosphere productivity in response to changes in solar insolation. Our modeling studies show that the main reasons for the strength of the 405-ky cycle in the carbon isotope data appear to be the long residence time of carbon in the oceans amplifying longer forcing periods, as well as a smaller contribution attributable to the dampening effects of dissolution of sea-floor carbonate on the shorter-term forcing. In addition, we find that applying astronomical forcing to key variables of the carbon cycle, rather than to temperature alone, is necessary to model the principal features of our data set, adding strength to the view (1) that the effect of orbital forcing is imprinted upon paleoclimatic records through an influence on the carbon cycle as well as temperature.

LAYMENS CONCLUSION AS INTERPRETED BY ME:
Changes in insolation (ie the flux of solar energy to the earth) drive the changes in biosphere productivity (e.g the plants and animals). Carbon acts to enhance the effects on long term solar forced changes and dampen the effects on shorter term solar forced changes (e.g. smooths the curve).

This is consistent with the conclusion of the recent book by Singer and Avery.

See also:
Shackleton (2000) The 100,000-Year Ice-Age Cycle Identified and Found to Lag Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Orbital Eccentricity Science Vol. 289. no. 5486, pp. 1897 - 1902
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5486/1897?ijkey=d54be588d016540eef720c9e9064845dfd650e37&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

apologies for lack of work wrapping
For some reason, the text failed to 'wrap' leading
to the poor format. I am sorry...

a different take
Outside scientific investigation, proof of warmer climates earlier are the great spring fertility rites of the ancient Mediterranean civilizations that occurred in our month of Feb.: the Greater Dionysia in Greece and the Lupercalia (Rome's February 1)that opens Shakespeare's "Juius Caesar" and is taken from Plutarch's "Life of Casear." The Roman god Mars gave his name to March because it was the ancient season for war, when the weather was warmer and the roads firm and dry. In the Anglo-Saxon epic, "Beowulf," set in what would be today's modern Copenhagen and southern Sweden, there is no translation for "snow" or "ice." The Viking settlements across the N. Atlantic fell to a cooling climate (supported by archeological excavations). Chaucer opens the "Canterbury Tales" with the "drought of March." The biggest problem with modern environmentalism is the entire "discipline" is predicated on the Romantic Movement's emphasis on self and "emotional truth," and the Transcendental Emersonian belief in intuition surpassing academic, scientific learning. The earth has been much warmer (the Crustaceas period saw 400-foot higher sea levels, no polar ice caps, no ozone layer) and much, much colder(the positied "snowball" earth, the first ice age, when the entire globe was submerged in glaciers). Of the two, warmer is probably better. Can human beings affect the annual many tens-hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 the planet itself produces with our paltry industrial 1-1.5 billion contriubution? We don't even know what the oceans actually do as sinks for most CO2. Romantics believe the rustic is always better (Voltaire despised the educated, urbanized Europeans), the exotic "other" is always purer (the Noble Savage), and the "modern" or "reformed" is ever preferable to the traditional or customary. I don't see Al Gore or Leo Dicaprio giving up airplane flights or the entertainment business itself, one of the most energy-intensive, gaseous occupations that exists outside of space shuttle travel and carpet bombing. At the most extreme, GW is a Utopian brand of totalitarianism that hopes to tell everyone (except the beknihgted in maybe Africa and India and China and Hollywood)how to travel, work, raise children, and enjoy, or just survive, life. The rest of us should be very alert to the political consequences.

The warmest year on record
Oh, let's see, we have records for how many years? 120-150? The earth has existed for how many years? Even if you are a young earth advocate, the records represent a small percentage.

Why don't all the GW advocates relocated to a specific location, try out their ideas, and see if there is any actual impact?

Thank you, Dr. Sowell
For continuing the topic.

Maureed Dowd award
Maureen Dowd won a Pulitzer prize for her columns on Monicagate. (for all you who think she's liberal, she supported Bush over Gore because, and I'm not making this up, the Bush "package" was better -- you know what I mean.) She wrote the same column day after day, which the Pulitzer committee recognized by calling it "single issue reporting".

Now, let's have TH publish the same global warming denial every day so we can have the same rebuttals and get the same nowhere.

I once worked
for the Wisconsin State Department of Administration. There was a moonbat true believer in global warming (an "Analyst") nearby. I made the mistake of wearing a light coat to work on an early spring day with a forecast of 'falling temps'. It was about 50 when I went to work and about 30 when I left. Since I had to park about a mile from work (parking in downtown Madison stinks thanks to the lefties that run that city), I froze walking back to my car.

I was telling my colleagues about it the next day when I saw the moonbat walk by out of the corner of my eye, so I raised my voice slightly and said "Thank goodness for Global Warming or I REALLY would have froze!" It was hilarious watching him get irate, bouncing off the walls! He said "You just wait until next summer!" The next summer was no hotter than any other Wisconsin summer in memory.

To Mondamay
The biggest intent of the infamous hockey stick graph was to scare people. Once real scientists starting investigating the graph they found glaring holes in it's construction. Once these holes were investigated it was found that the errors were intentional. In other words, the UN “scientists” intentionally cooked the calculation to sway the outcome. In any other rational universe this would have resulted in this entire mess being ridiculed out of existence. The problem here was that Albore and the Dems wanted this mess so the MSM was not allowed to pursue the fraud involved here.

SparkZ
Thanks for the excellent post,
even if Kim thinks you are a naysayer in the employ of the evil oil companies.
She won't believe that the source was peer reviewed.

To Kimberly
Did you go to the petition site and look at the 20,000 scientists who are nay sayers?

Addendum: sources and peer review
Of course Kimbat would not have heard of Science, the peer reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Nor recognize that the editors in general are GW believers. Here are the places of employment of the so called "oil company sponsored" scientists.

1 National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK.
2 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD
3 Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Canada
4 School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, UK.
5 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, UK.
6 Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers

Notably, the authors do not indicate whether they support GW or not. They simply conclude that in the time period studied (a very long time ago), the record is supported by changes in solar flux.


Sparky Z
Great post! I'm sure the "MotherEarth"zealots are cringing at your observations. In truth all this rigamarole surrounding climate change stems from the "Druids" as I like to call them and their Gaia based religion....and make no mistake..it IS their religion!

Global Hot Air, Part III
All of this talk about hockey sticks and meltng glaciers is great fun and wil certainly keep UN beauracrats employed for years. However, what has been left out of the conversation is the fact that there is a solution to the problem, if in fact there is a problem in the first place. The earth keeps its cool in the first place by reflecting a large potion of the sunlight that hits it. All of the sunlight not reflected is absorbed and must be dissipated through radiation. According to the theory greenhouse gases reduce radiation and therefore cause the earth to retain heat.

All the talk so far has ignored the possibility of increasing the amount of sunlight that is reflected. While it may seem to belong in the realms of science-fiction fantasy increasing the earth's reflectivity is well within current technology and is certainly less extreme than a total disruption of our economy.

kimberly
the naysayers ARE going with the planet... we feel the planet is more sturdy than liberals give it credit it for...

To proffessor cut and paste
Your long posting about magnetic pole shift doesn't really say anything. So what, we already knew sunspots occur on app a 11 year cycle. Sunspot activity is minor compared to other activity. What I have seen from scientists related to solar activity is both a micro and a macro effect on the temp. In other words you would have a minor sinusoidal wave inside of a major sinusoidal wave. If you look at how global temperatures oscillate you will see that is exactly what we have. A lot of oscillations within oscillations within oscillations.

As to your other comment about NASA, I don’t know if they are an overall left wing group or not, I haven’t reviewed enough of their press releases to make a judgment. I have seen enough evidence from the EPA however, to call them a left wing group. I reviewed a court case a few years ago where they had been caught in flagrant tampering of calculations to show second hand smoke was a carcinogen. The judge threw them out of court.

Loyal Dem
LOL.

That was great!