FACT CHECK: National Review’s Cover Story Distorts Facts On Global Warming
FACT CHECK: National Review’s Cover Story Distorts Facts On Global Warming
The National Review’s June 6 cover story, Scare of the Century by Jason Lee Steorts, has several serious errors and omissions. By distorting evidence, Steorts misleads his readers about the threats of global warming. Here’s a debunk of some of Steorts’s inaccurate claims:
CLAIM: “[T]here is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far.”
FACT: In 2002, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.â€
FACT: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions, noting that “the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone.â€
FACT: Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.
CLAIM: “When it’s not even clear that the warming we’ve seen is hurting us — many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable — such draconian solutions should be unthinkable.”
FACT: The 2001 report by the IPCC finds that global climate change’s “negative health impacts are anticipated to outweigh positive health impacts.†Assuming that current emission levels continue, an increase in heat waves and a deterioration in air quality “will increase the risk of mortality and morbidity, principally in older age groups and the urban poor.†Additionally, any “regional increases in climate extremes (storms, floods, cyclones, etc.) associated with climate change would cause physical damage, population displacement, and adverse effects on food production, freshwater availability and quality, and would increase the risks of infectious disease epidemics, particularly in developing countries.â€
CLAIM: “Various studies show that warmer temperatures are causing the ice sheet there to lose mass at the margins. But, as in Antarctica, higher sea temperatures are also causing greater snowfall and building up ice in the interior…In fact, Science had earlier published a study by Ola Johannessen that used satellite measurements to determine how much the ice sheet was growing. Johannessen found that, between 1992 and 2003, it was gaining on average 5.4 centimeters of elevation per year.”
FACT: The study (by Johanessen et al.) did find there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland’s interior. This is exactly what you’d expect as the earth gets warmer. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain: “However, Johanessen et al. were not able to measure all of the coastal ranges. Indeed, the thinning of the margins and growth in the interior Greenland is an expected response to increased temperatures and more precipitation in a warmer climate. These results present no contradiction to the accelerated sliding near the coasts.â€
CLAIM: “If today’s temperatures are causing Greenland’s coastal ice to slide into the sea, it must have been positively galloping there 80 years ago. That’s significant, because the warming period in the early 20th century took place well before fossil-fuel burning could have triggered global warming.”
FACT: According Climatic Research Unit data, the last three decades (1976-2005) have seen a sharper rise in global air temperature than any other period since at least 1860.
CLAIM: How much ice has Antarctica gained? In a 2005 study published in Science, Curt Davis used satellite measurements to calculate changes in the ice sheet’s elevation, and found that it gained 45 billion tons of ice per year between 1992 and 2003. Far from flooding the coasts, that’s enough to lower sea levels by roughly 0.12 millimeters annually.
FACT: Davis has criticized the global warming skeptics’ misuse of his data. The whole story, according to Davis, is that increased precipitation in the interior of Antarctica is “predicted consequence of global climate warming.†Warmer temperatures mean more participation and more snow on the interior of the continent. Meanwhile, “Growth of the ice sheet was only noted on the interior of the ice sheet and did not include coastal areas. Coastal areas are known to be losing mass.â€
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
I’m not a scientist…but using satellites to measure changes in the altitude of ice?
Does that mean I can fill a cup with water and ice, not drink it, and when the melting ice rises in the cup I can say THAT is a sign of having more ice.
Sounds to me like rising ice is a sign that ice is melting, causing sea levels to increase. BUt hey, if one area in the centre of the antarctic is getting more snow…surely that must contradict the hundreds of others signals that global warming is real. At least in Bush world.
I swear, give them another year and their defense to everythign will be, “Oh yeah! Well you’re stupid!”
May 25th, 2006 at 2:25 pm” many argue that it’s a boon, citing its benefits to agriculture and its potential to make severe climates more hospitable…”
Right - think about all that land that’s going to become available in Antarctica in a couple of centuries.
In the meantime, while we’re waiting for that, all those folks who live in south and the west can talk about what a boon it is, as the heat goes up right along with the energy cost for air conditioning.
It’s not a benefit to agriculture, if the places that you’re farming become non-farmable, even if some other land that wasn’t becomes farmable. What if the new farmland isn’t yours, and the old land was? Well, that’s sort of the way it will happen with everyone, isn’t it?
Same thing with making “inhospitable areas more hospitable….” — the corollary is it also makes currently hospitable areas LESS hospitable. What they overlook is that those current-hospitable areas are where all the people are living.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:37 pmRead Tim Flannery’s utterly scientific book “The Weather Makers“. Human-caused global warming is real and will have devastating effects within 100 years if not abated. Flannery’s book is rather depressing and frightening.Read also Jared Diamond’s Collapse“. Wishful thinking denial just ain’t gonna cut it much longer.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:45 pmNicely done.
Regarding rising ice–this is regarding ice in theheart of Antarctica and Greenland that is land based, not water based. That ice pack will rise because of increased precipitation –the central regions remain sufficiently cold to build up ice in that context. Meanwhile enhance warming overall melts more ice at the margins. Exactly what is obseved.
Regarding the boon to us–this is really based upon the observation that some plants including grains do better in an enhanced CO2 environment. However, as noted by Ducktape, the risk is that the shift in climate puts them at more risk. For example, the warming will mean increased drying of the soil, and the warming trend will be more pronounced in the midcontinent regions as opposed to the coasts because of the moderating influence of water. Guess where the breadbaskets of the US, Brazil, India, China, Ukraine, Russia are? IN the interior, yes. Moreover, the increasingly unpredictable weather (climate fluctuations) and loss of controllable irrigation in the form of snow pack will cause big problems. It is a big concern here in CA, which is the largest agricultural state in the US.
This is really nonsense, and indicates that the right and corporations like Exxon are damned nervous about Gore’s film.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:50 pmThe part I found interesting is what you call “claim” and “fact” when in reality; at this point no one knows what are facts, its all claims. A very respected scientist at MIT says its rubbish. And last I heard Al Gore isn’t a scientist. When I was in high school we were told the next ice age was coming, I guess that when the funding for that ran out the new golden opportunity was global warming. Remember scientist at the University of Wisconsin said cheeseburgers lower your cholesterol (paid for by the dairy and beef people). That was when I realized scientists are like hookers, they’ll do anything for a buck, the hookers are just honest about it. In the last century most temperature change happened in the first half of the century, so how did cars cause it? I’m not saying global warming isn’t happening, I am saying I haven’t seen anything from either side to convince me one way or the other. Now if you tell me the seasons are shifting I may believe that as its what I have seen lately (no snow in December, lots of rain in May). There’s my 2 cents.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:07 pmBush has the brain of a petulant four year old with the power to punish anyone he pleases. Just ask Ray Nagin whom Bush systematically deprived of funding after Nagin criticized his handling of Katrina. Givien this sort of churlishness, Bush will actively promote carbon dioxide emissions simply because his opponents find fault with his policies. Time for little Caligula II to go if anyone’s interested in having a planet left after his despicable tenure in office.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pmI apologize for being off topic.
MSNBC reports some stolen or ‘missing’ TSA uniforms. Now, what could Bush possible use these for?
May 25th, 2006 at 3:10 pmEVERYONE,
May 25th, 2006 at 3:22 pmPlease send your used motor oil to ANVILHEAD. I think he ingests it as food. LIKE A ROBOT.
So how is National Review spinning that the increasing number of ferocious hurricanes like Katrina is a good thing….
May 25th, 2006 at 3:35 pmDo you guys believe absolutely everything you hear? You accuse everyone who does not believe in global warming to be ignorant and to have fallen victim to “big oil”, but you have all done the same thing, except you’ve fallen victim to believing something just because you support the political position of the person preaching it (Al Gore). For every one “expert” you site that says global warming is happening, I’ll site two experts that say it is not, some of them even from institutions you profess to be so astute (MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc.). It’s arrogant and self-apologetic to think that humans are doing as much damage as you claim. How do you justify two ice ages before fossil fuels were even available? How do you justify the alarmist media reports in the 1970’s that the world was freezing? The same media today is freaking out about global warming. You guys will jump on any environmental bandwagon that comes by just because you think you are saving the world. Get over yourselves.
And, let me ask you: How did you get to work? Are you using anything in your life made of plastic (derived from oil, just in case you did not know)? What about the carpet (fibers are oil derived), wood floors (urethane coating is oil derived) or tile floor (adhesives to attach the tile are oil derived) you are standing on? How about the plastic on your keyboard, monitor and computer? What about the fabric or the foam on your chair (polyester and polyurethane comes from oil, you know)? How does the water-treatment plant that treats the crap that you flush down the toilet get its power? What about the paper-production plant that makes the toilet paper you use to wipe with – where does it get its power? How do the people that run that plant get to work? You bitch, bitch, bitch, but you don’t do anything to make the problem go away unless it fits conveniently in your elitist lifestyle. Get over yourselves. My message to you: Stop bitching unless you are actually doing something about it. I guarantee that if you had to actually make any major lifestyle changes to reflect your “beliefs”, you’d give up your causes pretty quickly.
Convenient Environmentalists (that would be most of you, just to clarify) are even more moronic that the fuel-burning, Hummer driving guy that you seem to hate so much! If you really want to save the world, get off your ass, get out of your Volvo, put down your Starbucks coffee, get rid of the plastic, stop using electricity and actually do something about it. Good God, man, what a bunch of self-centered, trendy hypocrites you are. “Save the Whales”, “Free Tibet”, “No Wal Mart”, “No War for Oil”, “War is not the Answer” — you are bigger suckers than the big-oil, middle-America “rednecks†that you seem to hate so much. I know – how about this: Go out on a limb and protest Target instead of Wal Mart — oh, wait — that is not trendy enough for you, is it? Did you know Target has the same labor practices and product suppliers (”slave labor”, as you call it) that you hate Wal Mart so much for? Free Tibet? I bet most of you don’t even know where Tibet is. In fact, I bet most of you think Tibet is some guy locked up in a jail cell somewhere.
Another thing: How can you let a guy like Al Gore tell you what to do? He’s flying all over the country in a private jet with an entourage of cars and SUV’s taking him to his meetings. He burns more fuel in one day than you do in a year. I’m sure he justifies it by telling himself it is necessary for him to deliver his all-important message to all of you brainwashed cool-aid drinkers.
Quit whining. Act responsibly, don’t over-consume and spend time enjoying the gifts that the earth has given you. Stop worrying about global warming, because you can’t do anything to make it better — it is not in your control. Grow up.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pmANVILHEAD - Um… tell you a little secret: “we” won’t get the oil; politicians, sports stars, CEOs and Paris Hilton will get it. Now don’t you have a NASCAR race to watch or a girlfriend to beat or something? Retard.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:46 pmI believe the facts. The earth heating is not something one does or doesn’t believe in - like not believing in gravity. It some people a while to catch on to that too. Your grandkids will understand if you can’t.
I understand that people also didn’t want to believe that AIDS was anything other than a homosexual disease. Oops again. It is just a shame that some would rather stay in denial so they can feel okay with driving the huge vehicles and don’t have to ruin their beautiful minds. Truly the selfish republican way. Like they say down south here, “I don’t feel it gettin’ no hotter.”
May 25th, 2006 at 3:53 pmYeah, I think the only confusion about the global warming problem is why people don’t care.
I watched a show once about a beach in Australia that apparently has the largest known ozone hole above it, and people there had skin cancer like crazy. Have you ever heard of this place? I can’t remember what it was called.
May 25th, 2006 at 3:54 pmLet’s be honest with oursevles. There ARE some good things about global warming. Some areas that are too cold or too dry will get better. However, the negative effects will be so major and so severe that the pluses are not even close to worth it.
I think the reality of the concerns about global warming are serious enough to merit our attention and action. There’s no need to exaggerate it…
May 25th, 2006 at 3:55 pmThis site is great:
How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 02/ how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
This guy, Coby Beck, took all of the most common issues brough up by people who argue against human caused global warming and destroys each argument. It’s brilliant.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:04 pm#11 Kip,
there are 10 bios on realclimate.org’s site, so lets see your twenty
http://www.realclimate.org/ index.php/ archives/ category/ extras/ contributor-bios/
May 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pmKnowledge just mabey one of those people who are so smart that they are stupid , kind of the opposite of an idiot savant . You can site this or that to make yourself sound believable but the proof is in the pudding . If you don’t believe that than I suggest you move to the Virgin Islands build a nice house put everything you own in it and watch the ocean swallow it up . I used to think that republicans were treasonist to the american people but now they’re to all humans and creatures of the earth .
May 25th, 2006 at 4:09 pmForget that. I want to know what those 50 greatest conservative rock songs are. I can’t believe there are 50 of them! What, Ronnie and the Reaganauts? Mullet Mosh? Flat Tax Swing? Heavy Supply Side Metal? Or maybe Ted Nugent’s entire library?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:13 pminconvenient truth sound familiar?
May 25th, 2006 at 4:15 pmShit, all you need for rebuttal is that Rich Lowry “WE’RE WINNING (in Iraq)” cover.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pmOK, I dislike the National Review, much like any other human being with a brain. But what do you expect from them? They are an upgraded, print edition version following the Fox News formula:
News Topic + Conservative Bent = Truth
May 25th, 2006 at 4:28 pmThe problem with this debate is that environmentalists do not know what is causing global warming. Sure, they may claim it is because of man-made greenhouse gases, but the real truth is, they don’t know. Thirty years ago, claims were made that by the year 2000, there would be no more oil. All gone. But we are still driving as much and more. Guess they were a little off then. See my point. The sun actually has more to do with global warming than we could ever hope to. Reference evidence of the polar caps on Mars melting. (Or did we cause that too?) Most people understand this which is why liberals cannot win or hold power ever again. Now, I would like to see this country grow less dependent on foreign oil, but for different reasons.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:30 pmThis National Review story will only appeal to the dumb shits, the self-deluded, the uneducated, and the selfish Republicans.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:34 pmCheck this websit our:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
May 25th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThat’s a poor job trying to dispute the first claim. There are plenty of people out there that don’t buy the hypothesis. It’s nice to see the peer review claim again. It’s the old standby.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:39 pmI think Knowledge here is one of those people who think the world is only 6000 years old. If you think the earth is only 6000 years old you can believe anything including whatever ExxonMobile says is true.
Furthermore Knowledge, you condemn people who care about the environment for still driving cars an so forth. Obviously we need to live and eat just like everybody else and we can only do that with the tools that are at hand. What we are here to do is to change all of that so that we can have a sustainable future.
Obviously, we could also turn this around on you. Knowledge you use plastic cups don’t you? Well, plastic was developed by scientists and scientists say that global warming is really happening and that it is caused by humans. Knowledge, you drive a car. Guess what??? The internal combustion engine was developed and perfected by ..you guessed it SCIENTISTS!! Now you are saying that scientists are not trustorthy yet you used plasics and use scientist developed untrustworthy vehicles every day of your life!!! What a hypocrite!!!
Randy, who said 30 years ago that there wouldn’t be any oil in 2000? Great research there fella. I can see why you weighed in on this debate. I think you should self reflect on the word ‘Truthiness’ for a little while.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:04 pmExcellent example of a compassionate conservative right here.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:16 pmYeah, Fugazi, but it’s not as though scientists are saying the car can’t run. The scientists who made the plastics and cars predicted correctly that they’d work (to some degree, we’re not talking perfection).
If they were, and yet there you are driving the thing and it’s going great, then you’d be right to mistrust the scientists.
Try again.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:26 pmI expect no less from the inverse Chicken-Littles. Republican Chicken-Little will be rushing round the farmyard telling everyone that far from falling, the sky is perfectly intact and clean, and showing no signs of falling. In fact, the sky is the strongest it’s ever been, and any attempt to question the integrity of the sky emboldens its enemies.
Even though he has bits of broken, fallen sky sticking out of his face.
Oh, and the farmyard is under 30 feet of water.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:29 pmKnowledge, I need to continue to punch holes in your arguments because it is so easy. I like it where you mention that you can name two (which you did not name by the way) scientist that support the Exxon position that global warming is either not happening or that humans have no part to play in it. Right in the article above which you probably didn’t read which makes you, like Bush incredibly ill informed it says ‘Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.’
Knowledge, give it up. Scientists don’t generally support those who strive to self impose their own ingnorance on themselves and others. The only scientists that support an ExxonMobile view of the world are the unscrupulous ones paid by ExxonMobile to do so.
Knowlege, somewhere else in your rantings you mention ice ages and you positively cannot figure out how that could be consistent with global warming or why scientists say the next ice age is coming. First, there haven’t been just two ice ages in the past. There have been at least 4 in the last billion years (if you believe the earth is older than 6000 years of course, otherwise it was just last week). The first of which, it is speculated, may have frozen over the entire planet. The reason you heard about another glacial period on the way a few decades ago was because there was a mistaken belief that glacial periods are cyclic in the same way as the tides or the seasons. Furthermore, somehow the idea was spread that the interglacial period was 10,000-12,000 years with the last one ending about that long ago. There never, ever was a scientific consensus on this, however. Whoever steered you wrong on this assumption, it was not the scientific consensus. As it turns out the glacial period, if anything is twice as long as that although there are really too many factors to glaciation to expect it to come back on cue.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:50 pmOh Boy, Aaron G. Stock says my argument doesn’t hold water. That must mean he is right because he says so. Who do you think you are Karl Rove? Can I call you Turd Blossom too or is that just between you and your soulmate the Shrub? There is overwhelming, peer reviewed, evidence that man made global warming exists, just like cars. Where are you drawing the distinction…because you are personally running the latter experiment maybe? Well, Aaron G. Stock, somebody someday had to get in that very first car and I can be sure that it was noone like you.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:57 pmNow I know for sure that you are a mental midget.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pmWill these neo-con knuckleheads ever get their gargantuan heads out of the sand? Global warming is happening, maybe not at the rate of Day After Tomorrow, but it’s happening. And, if nothing’s done about it, bad things are going to happen. I know, I live in Florida.
http://www.lcoliberal.blogspot.com
The latest on the Ken Lay conviction: Right now on LCL
http://www.sunstateactivist.org
May 25th, 2006 at 6:01 pmProvocative coverage of the Lay conviction. Give us your opinion.
Right now on SSA
Fugazi — decent argument, but it does not hold water. I did not say that scientists were wrong in general — I said that the scientists that support global warming are outnumbered by scientists that believe it is not attributed to human consumption of oil.
And only being able to live and work with the tools at hand — I don’t buy it. If you really want to make a difference, practice what you preach (tell this to Al Gore). Ride a bike to work, grow your own food and do everything you can to get rid of your dependence on petroleum. Unfortunately, it will be…are you ready for this…inconvenient. I know that that scares about 99.9% of whiny liberals away, but maybe you will be one of the .1% that actually practices what he preaches.
You also make assumptions that simply because someone does not believe in global warming, they are a republican. Wrong again. Republicans are no better than the liberal elitist democrats. Anyone who puts bind faith in a political party is a complete idiot. Think and act independently. Just because your party says it is so does not make it so. Just because other liberals are protesting Wal Mart or Prarie Dog Colony Relocation, doesn’t mean you have to also. Just because Rush Limbaugh stumbles over himself to support Bush doesn’t mean you have to also.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:09 pm[…] Think Progress […]
May 25th, 2006 at 6:14 pmFACT:
The 2001 report by the IPCC finds the following that thinkparanoid ignores:
1)No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.
2)After an initial decrease in the mid-1970s, Antarctic sea-ice extent has remained stable, or even slightly increased.
3)No significant trends of Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent since 1978, the period of reliable satellite measurements.
Those are the inconvenient facts, jack. And it’s not getting any warmer in Homer, Alaska. Explain that.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:36 pmKnowledge,
I would ask you if you voted for GWB in the last election but I realize you were probably not old enough to vote then.
If you disagree with 928 scientifically peer reviewed articles over a decade then you disagree with the scientific method. If you disagree with the scientific method you disagree with the underpinning of all of science and all scientists. You give up your car first (because you don’t trust it) and then I will give up my own.
As it happens, I do ride a bike to work because I thought ahead and bought a house that was close to where I work. When it rains though or when it is 12 degrees outside I elect to use the car. I could also stop breathing to save the earth the CO2 I produce upon exhaling which would please you immensely since I keep iritatingly shooting down your arguments but I am not going to.
I am also not going to critisize Al Gore for getting the word out about the scientifically proven phenomenon know as global warming which he is doing despite, flat earthers and corporate lapdogs like yourself. Now that we have discussed the least important hole I have punched in your argument, lets cover all the others I had already punched holes in and have you defend those instead of cherry picking (like your idol the Shrub does).
Start siting your ‘experts’. I can reference you to the top of the page and point out 928 peer reviewed articles. I will assume that each one was written by only one person. Since some of them are probably written by the same person I will give you a break and we will, just for fun, say there are 300 original authors. That would mean, using your 2 for 1 rule, you owe us 600 ‘experts’ that say global warming does not exist. Of course, I would also like to know where their funding comes from and where the work. The funny part is, I doubt you even thought about what you were saying when you made that claim. I would think you could not name 5 scientists that support your position off the top of your head simply because you don’t show the intellectual curiosity enough to even bother to read that much. It is for people like you that Stephen Colbert came up with the concept of ‘Truthiness’ which you illustrate here for everyone. By the way, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter don’t count towards your ’scientists’. Sorry.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pmComments back:
Jim: 1) The MIT scientist you refer to is Richard Lindzen, who is the one out of about 6 professional skeptics who has any credibility and decent science record in terms of impact, honors, and publication record. You can take Lindzen and the 6-7 dwarfs and put those up against the 2-3000 mainstream climate scientists who stand behind the IPCC report (www.ipcc.ch) , the leaders of whom are manifold (Tom Wigley, James Hansen, Jerry Mahlman, Kevin Trenberth, Ben Santer) each of whom stands as tall or taller than Lindzen.
2) YOu reveal your true colors later in directing readers to the Junkman of science site. Steve Milloy who started that has a total of zero peer reviewed publications, a masters degree in biostatistics from Johns Hopkins which requires no substantial thesis, and yet somehow is supposed to be an expert on what is junk in science. His taste for junk runs suspiciously close to Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big Chem Industry.
Randy: If you go to chapter 12 of the 2001 working group 1 report on climate change from the IPCC you will find why we believe that global warming is caused by us. Just to pick one example which is easy to understand. You say it is the sun. Well, if increased solar radiance were the source, you would find increased heat in the lower atmosphere and no change in the upper atmosphere, because that assumes no change in the profile of heat trapping
gases-you just trap the extra heat. On the other hand, with constant solar radiance and increased heat trapping gases, you will find that more of the re-radiated energy (by the earth) is trapped in the lower atmosphere and that cools the upper atmosphere. Guess what? That is what is observed. Look at Figs. 12-5 and 12-8 of that report.
Virtually no serious scientist buys this folks. Lindzen is arguably serious (although his willingness to accept fossil fuel industry support certainly taints his rep–there is lots of governmental support available and last I checked this government is trying to suppress the notion of warming….) but stack that up against huge majorities including our own national academy of science and you see that these skeptics are not “heroic contrarians” ala Stan Prusiner with prions. They are by and large opportunists happily renting their credibility to the fossil fuel industry and cheerfully exploiting the media’s Boolean sense of balance.
Get real. Global warming is here, and we have met the enemy in the mirror.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:49 pmWho are these esteemed Scientists who don’t believe in Global Warming? I have never heard of them. Even the Pentagon (hardly a bastion of Liberal thought!) released an internal paper which declared Global Warming to be the #1 THREAT of the new century! What, you didn’t hear about that on FOX “News” or (Head) Rush Limbaugh? I’m so surprised! What really amuses me is when people try to argue against G.W. based on logic!
The conservative take on global warming suggests that if some people don’t believe in the theory, if must not be true. I suppose there are some people out there who believe the world is flat, but most scientists will tell you they think it is round. Who you you believe, the 99% who say it is round or the 1% who think it is flat?
I’m tired of the demonization of environmentalists. We are all environmentalists, some of us just won’t admit it, because then they’d lose something to hate. Don’t believe me? If you don’t defecate in your kitchen then you are an environmentalist! See, you don’t want the “clean” environment of your kitchen spoiled with your own waste, which may cause you and you family to get sick, die, etc. So, even if you’re a die-hard Bush/Dittohead GOP’er, you’re really: an environmentalist! Not really so radical, is it?
I wonder, when 1/2 of Florida & NYC is underwater, and the “breadbasket of the world” (midwest US/Canada) becomes a dustbowl, and Siberia becomes the new center of world agriculture, will the wingnuts then admit they were wrong?
May 25th, 2006 at 6:53 pmBearPig,
The IPCC is all about sea level rise. Just Google it. You should try it sometime. Beyond the misdirection on the IPCC report you mentioned, why is the permafrost in Alaska melting? Why are roads cracking up there? Why is the Greenland and Antartic ice sheets melting just as predicted in global warming models? In the South Pacific there are islands where graveyards were dug 60 years ago along the beach and they are now half in the water. I suppose you think the islands sunk and the sea level stayed the same?
May 25th, 2006 at 6:54 pmIt’s Global Warming Mania. Much like Tulip Mania addled the heads of Hollanders during the early seventeenth century.
There is a glacier in Alaska that has receded 65 miles in the last 100 years.
The earth is warming. All of the CO2 that was emitted into the atmosphere during the Industrial Revolution replaced all of the natural CO2 that existed in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution.
What man has done through the ages:
Forests of pine, cedars and oaks blanketed the slopes of the Atlas Mountains of Algeria and Morocco prior to the Roman conquest. Logging by the Romans and people in the intervening centuries has destroyed all but fragments of these forests. The Atlas Bear (Ursus arctos crowtheri) originally ranged in these forests but was gradually pushed toward extinction by loss of its forest habitat, hunting and capture. The last of these bears was killed in the late 19th century (Day 1981). The endemic Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) has wide girths and grows to heights of more than 125 feet. They are often covered in moss and lichens in the cool altitudes (color photo, see Mittermeier et al. 1999a). Unfortunately, they are fast being depleted by timber cutters in Morocco and Algeria (Mittermeier et al. 1999a). North Africa’s forests have become fragmented by centuries of logging and heavy grazing by cattle, sheep, and goats. The native Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) have also been extremely destructive to the few forests that remain, endangering many birds (Collar and Stuart 1985).
http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/forest_eurasian_lost.php
Oh my god, wild boars are endangering forests and birds too. They’re just as bad as mankind. Holy Cow!
Man is still here doing the same thing over and over again.
Despite all of that, man continues to do even more ‘damage’ to the earth. The earth is a resilient place. It will recover. Much to the dismay of the those who ‘love’ the earth.
We live here. We must use the earth’s resources to survive. If we don’t use them, we die. Get over it.
May 25th, 2006 at 6:57 pmWhy exactly are conservatives called conservatives?
If you read post #43, Ron makes it very clear, that we should just wipe out everything. Cut down all the trees, use all the oil, dump all the industrial pollutants into the ground. Why not use our resources responsibly, instead of acting like a drunken sailor on shore leave?
The only part of the post Ron got right, was that the earth will survive. Whether we survive with it is another matter.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:05 pm#42
The IPCC is all about sea level rise. Just Google it. You should try it sometime.
I have the report. Try reading it sometime. The contradictions are right there. I only gave you three of them. So explain why the IPCC found:
“No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
And explain why it’s not getting any warmer in Homer, genious.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:17 pmReport: Jet stream shift is expanding the Earth’s tropics and deserts
WASHINGTON — Deserts in the American Southwest and around the globe are creeping toward heavily populated areas as the jet streams shift, scientists reported Thursday.
The result: Areas already stressed by drought may get even drier.
Satellite measurements made from 1979 to 2005 show that the atmosphere in the subtropical regions both north and south of the equator is heating up. As the atmosphere warms, it bulges out at the altitudes where the northern and southern jet streams slip past like swift and massive rivers of air. That bulging has pushed both jet streams about 70 miles closer to the Earth’s poles.
Since the jet streams mark the edge of the tropics, in essence framing the hot zone that hugs the equator, their outward movement has allowed the tropics to grow wider by about 140 miles. That means the relatively drier subtropics move as well, pushing closer to places like Salt Lake City, where Thomas Reichler, co-author of the new study, teaches meteorology.
“One of the immediate consequences one can think of is those deserts and dry areas are moving poleward,” said Reichler, of the University of Utah. Details appear in Thursday’s Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science.
The movement has allowed the subtropics to edge toward populated areas, including the American Southwest, southern Australia and the Mediterranean basin. In those places, the lack of precipitation already is a worry.
“The Mediterranean is one region that models consistently show drying in the future. That could be very much related to this pattern that we are seeing in the atmosphere,” said Isaac Held, a senior research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He is not connected with the research.
A shift in where subtropical dry zones lie could make climate change locally noticeable for more people, said Karen Rosenlof, a NOAA research meteorologist also unconnected to the study.
“It is a plausible thing that could be happening, and the people who are going to see its effects earliest are the ones who live closer to the tropics, like southern Australia,” said Rosenlof. Her own work suggests the tropics have actually compressed since 2000, after growing wider over the previous 20 years.
Reichler suspects global warming is the root cause of the shift, but said he can’t be certain. Other possibilities include variability and destruction of the ozone layer. However, he and his colleagues have noted similar behavior in climate models that suggest global warming plays a role.
Moving the jet streams farther from the equator could disrupt storm patterns, as well as intensify individual storms on the poleward side of the jet streams, said lead author Qiang Fu, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist.
In Europe, for example, that shift could mean less snow falling on the Alps in winter. That would be bad news for skiers, as well as for farmers and others who rely on rivers fed by snowmelt.
“This definitely favors or enhances the frequency of droughts,” Fu said of such a shift
http://www.usatoday.com/ weather/ climate/ 2006-05-25-wider-tropics_x.htm
Not an actual scientific study but another brick in the wall ..the wall of ignorance by the appologists for the repugs and Exxon..who will ignore this also
May 25th, 2006 at 7:21 pmNot an actual scientific study.
Thanks for clearing that up. That would be a tinfoil brick and holes in the wall so you can see the unchanged see levels through it.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:35 pmIf you have the report, why did you paraphrase it out of context?
I didn’t. Those exact summary findings were taken directly from the report.
May 25th, 2006 at 7:40 pmTechncal Summary, Section B.4 is where you will find the “false quote”. I think you should be apologizing to yourself for being an idiot. Now explain the contradiction and why it’s not getting any warmer in Homer, AK.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:02 pmYes, you cherry picked your phrase (or more likely someone cherry picked it for you) out of context. This is how conservatives debate since facts rarely are on their side.
You can see the same thing happening in the net neutrality debate where AT&T, Verizon and the other telecom megacorporations are pushing for the COPE Act which basically gives them complete control of the internet along with the ability to block their users from seeing sites they don’t agree with (like this one). So what do they do? They run a capaign saying support Net Neutrality by supporting the COPE Act in hopes of confusing supporters of a free internet.
Corporations like Exxon and AT&T don’t care about the United States or Americans they only care about increasing profits in the next quarter. In fact, if you look at their corporate charters it is their feduciary responsibility to the investor to do so. Anything they support is at least suspect and they know this too. That is why they throw money at unscrupulous, greedy scientists and think tanks like AEI. That way they get a degree of separation from what they want said and who is actually saying it.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:03 pmMr. Steorts,
Pick up shovel. Go to beach. Dig hole. Insert head.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:40 pmI didn’t realize you were quoting a table…maybe you should have produced the entire table to deliver context since the whole table lists account after account after account of the negative effects of global warming.
First, no apology necessary so don’t hold your breath. Second, do the math 1-2mm a year for 100 years is 10-20 cm (with local variation which you also did not include as context). Third, they are projecting this to increase and already since this report the consensus is that these projections are a gross underestimate. They are now taking into account new tipping points such as the greenhouse gasses that will be released when the permafrost melts and all that biomass, frozen for thousands of years decays.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:44 pmWhether global warming is caused by our man-made pollutants or not, we owe it to our grandkids and their environment to do what we can to clean it up. The oil will run out, everyone agrees on that. The climate change fears (which I happen to share with this site, Think Progress) should just be one more terrible possibility which gets us off our collective butts and into creating cleaner, greener energy. Who doesn’t want cleaner energy (except for energy profiteers– we outnumber and can out-legislate them)?
May 25th, 2006 at 8:44 pmMr. Steorts,
Get Shovel. Go to beach. Dig hole. Insert head. Cover. It is incredibly irresponsible of you to politicize an issue as important as climate change.
May 25th, 2006 at 8:49 pmBearManPig = pwn3d
May 25th, 2006 at 10:20 pmTRUE STATEMENT:
Yes, there is wide disagreement, with the oil industry maintaining one position, and every known peer-reviewed journal articles speaking to the opposite position.
Who you gonna trust? The oil industry executives making billions of dollars, or a bunch of scientists? I mean, get real: the scientists don’t even believe the earth was created a few thousand years ago! It’s as simple as 2+2=5!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:37 pmok, so, global sea level is rising.
The human body is 95% salt water.
So, all we have to do is beget a few billion more people and the sea level will stay the same!
It’s as simple as 2+2=5!!
May 25th, 2006 at 10:56 pmi love the conservative argument here:
“oil is great! it’s the earth’s ‘gift’ to us! we can keep using it forever! you big meanies, quit picking on those nice oil companies!”
let’s NOT talk about global warming for a second.
these are the facts:
1) as long as america is dependent on oil, america will never be energy independent.
2) as long as america is dependent on oil, america will have to cater to countries like saudi arabia, azerbaijan, niger, georgia, turkmenistan, etc.
3) dependence on oil is bad for national security, skews our foreign and domestic policy, and strongly influences all federal elections for the worse.
4) american dependence on oil is good for only one constituency: the oil industry.
5) almost every major oil company posted record profits in 2005; meanwhile gas prices were higher than ever.
6) if the oil companies had to choose between saving america or saving the oil industry, they’d choose the oil industry (and have) every single time. they are proving that yet again. an example of this is exxonmobil’s continued refusal to pay $6.5 billion for damages in prince william sound from the exxon valdez wreck in 1989. exxon made the largest profit last year, over $36 billion.
so the question isn’t ‘is there global warming or isn’t there?’…or ‘is there peak or or isn’t there?’
the question is this:
May 25th, 2006 at 11:05 pmgiven that we are never going to produce enough oil domestically to meet our energy needs, is it wise to compromise our national security and political stability to perpetuate an industry that has demonstrated time and time again that it will sacrifice the wellbeing and security of america in favor of exhorbitant profits?
that’s ‘peak oil’, not ‘peak or’
May 25th, 2006 at 11:08 pmAnd we let these ignorant fools drive and vote. FYI: the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are sitting on top of a land mass, not floating in water.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:09 pmcarbon market in full swing.
A auto manufacturer can be a Clean Development Mechanism if it produces cars that have a greater fuel efficiency?
Oil companies can purchase certified emission reduction contracts to offset their pollutants?
Human produced excess CO2 has become a global business.
Global warming pays. It is the future.
Russia can become a certified emission reduction player just because they have so much territory that is a CO2 sink?
Russia will become very wealthy just by holding CO2 certified emission contracts?
Is that why the white list exists?
Me thinks there is more to global warming than meets the eye. It is an economic strategy.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pm‘An’ auto manufacturer. typo
May 25th, 2006 at 11:35 pmWhich side are YOU on?
1. Lower Reptile Brain = Greed, Fear = Conservative Corporate Republicians
2. Evolved Mammal Brain = Social Responsiblity = Pro Labor, Pro Family*, Pro Environment
*Gay rights and abortion rights are personal issues not social family issues.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:59 pmJust the facts. There is nothing gained, nothing lost. The hydrosphere is a closed system. Homeostasis will result no matter what the CO2 levels become.
It is better to remain neutral. The Swiss are.
The Kaiser of Germany asked the King of Switzerland what he would do if he would march a million man army through the Cantons of Switzerland. The King of Switzerland had a 500,000 man army. The King said to the Kaiser “each man will shoot twice.” The Kaiser of Germany didn’t march his army through Switzerland, he went around.
Whose side? The side of right.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:10 amReading the troll comments on this blog just about made my head explode. Are people (trolls) really that stupid? I’m really, really amazed by the stupid comments posted here by trolls concerning how they don’t believe in global warming. Don’t trolls take science classes? When I read some of the troll comments my first reaction is to think that they’re just playing dumb and that they’re actually liberals using irony. But, no, then I realize that they really are that stupid. I didn’t know that backwood hicks like these still existed in America, let alone that they know how to use a computer and how to post a comment on a blog. Keep it up trolls; you’re great entertainment. ROFL
May 26th, 2006 at 12:48 am1. I’m not a scientist…but using satellites to measure changes in the altitude of ice?
Does that mean I can fill a cup with water and ice, not drink it, and when the melting ice rises in the cup I can say THAT is a sign of having more ice.
Rosencrantz, you got one thing right — you are no scientist.
Do a simple experiment. Fill your cup with water and ice and see if the ice rises — it doesn’t, and the water doesn’t rise either.
Melting sea ice won’t raise sea levels. Melting sea ice won’t rise higher. Melting land ice WILL raise sea levels. Only increased snowfall will raise land ice. Snowfall is more influenced by moist air. Very cold air isn’t very moist.
Everything we observe happening points to global warming.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:49 am#11 said For every one “expert†you site (sic )that says global warming is happening, I’ll (sic) site two experts that say it is not,
I’ll start with the reputable scientists from 178 nations that met in Kyoto do something to stop CO2 emissions.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:17 amDo any of you nay sayers actually live in the polar regions? It’s happening and has been noticeable for the last few years. It’s happening at an uprecedented pace. You might not want to believe it but every nation-state that has arctic territory knows the facts and are deeply concerned. If you want to learn more I suggest a visit to the arctic then maybe I will listen.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:54 amThe temperature increased by 0.8 degrees Farenheit in the last century, with a margin of error of 0.4 degrees. What’s being debated is whether or not humans have contributed to a great amount of that knowing that the earth has always gone through cycles of change in temperature. So putting all that aside, let me ask this question: “does it really matter if the temperature increases another 0.8 degrees in the next century”? I mean think about, do the elderly people you know talk about how much hotter it is now than it was when they were younger? Do you really think they noticed that 0.8 degree (with a margin of error of 0.4 degrees) rise in temperature (assuming that they are over 100)? My guess would be no because most elderly people I know keep their thermostats set above 80. So let’s assume your standing in a room and someone turns the air up 1 degree. Will you notice? Maybe, but try standing in the room for 100 years. Are you starting to sweat yet? My point to this is (putting sarcasm aside), we worry too much about things that are so trivial. The alarmists want to point to constant heatwaves all the time. They want to pressure you into thinking that it’s dangerous to go outside, that everyone is melting like the wicked witch of the west. The truth of the matter is that people, animals, and plants alike are able to adjust to these changes very easily, even far more drastic ones. They want you to think we’re going to drown in a big puddle of glacier water. That brings up another point; along with the 0.8 degree rise in temperature, the oceans were claimed to have risen almost 8 inches. Let’s put this into perspective for a minute here, 8 inches is less than the circumference of a baseball, about the width of a piece of notebook or copy paper, and slightly longer than the average person’s hand. If this is starting to scare anybody I’ll let you bale out now. So how does this explain the sudden upsurge in hurricanes? you might ask. Well hurricane activity goes through cycles too. In fact, the rise in temperature for the first 40 years of the 20th century was about the same as the second half. If increased hurricane activity only depended on the factor of temperature, you wouldn’t see it just all of a sudden happening. Instead it would have gradually increased over time. Oh and by the way, how in the world could the temperature have increased as much in the first forty years of the 20th century if there was only a tiny fraction of the cars that there are today? Riddle me this Batman! Well I’ll just leave with that. I believe people should not have to live in fear. Remember the story of Chicken Little saying that the sky is falling? If you’re living in fear, you’re not really living. That’s what I believe.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:33 amI admit, I’m a troll. Hey, the earth’s temperature IS increasing, CO2 is rising, but I do not beleive it is soley due to human input.
Really global warming folks, why not READ the research papers, done by Ph’ds in climatology ?
Instead it is apparent you (as per think progress’s own links to this story) link to news reports written by news reporters ! And you think your getting an informed view ?
#75 - your right on. You must be part of the minority who actually bother to read the research papers of both sides of the story.
Anyone interested visit the web site at …climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu… (Climate Science).
Here is a summary from their website of the exisiting peer reviewed reserach regarding global warming.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:56 am1. The needed focus for the study of climate change and variability is on the regional and local scales. Global and zonally-averaged climate metrics would only be important to the extent that they provide useful information on these space scales.
2. Global and zonally-averaged surface temperature trend assessments, besides having major difficulties in terms of how this metric is diagnosed and analyzed, do not provide significant information on climate change and variability on the regional and local scales.
3. Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.
4. The spatial pattern of ocean heat content change is the appropriate metric to assess climate system heat changes including global warming.
5. In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.
6. Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales.
7. Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.
8. A vulnerability paradigm, focused on regional and local societal and environmental resources of importance, is a more inclusive, useful, and scientifically robust framework to interact with policymakers, than is the focus on global multi-decadal climate predictions which are downscaled to the regional and local scales. The vulnerability paradigm permits the evaluation of the entire spectrum of risks associated with different social and environmental threats, including climate variability and change.
Nova had a show a couple of weeks ago called “Global Dimming”. Robert Hansen was one of the climate scientists interviewed. It seems that particulate air pollution is blocking the sun’s rays and having a global cooling effect. The scientists have concluded that because of the effects of dimming, which mask some of the warming effect, that global warming is much worse than they thought. As we clean up particulate pollution, there is likely to be a spike in warming, but we must clean up particulate pollution because of the horrible health effects and its disruption of things like the monsoon in SubSaharan Africa, which causes drought and starvation.
The dimming is a nearly worlwide effect, and our government invested 25 million dollars into a study in the Pacific comparing the dimming in the north under the Asian brown cloud with the south where the air is still clean. There’s a lot of info at the PBS website.
Also, I’ve read that there are places in Siberia where the permafrost has melted enough that there are now lakes that are releasing methane in streams of bubbles vigorous enough to keep the lakes ice-free all year.
About the coming ice age, that would be if enough Greenland ice melts to shut down the Gulf Stream. Northern Europe and the Eastern US would become much colder. All those blue states will be icy instead of flooded.
Also, the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 1992, so I don’t know where people are getting that the first part of the 20th century were hotter.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:00 amthank you tommy from tyler for wasting everyone’s time with the typical “nothing to see here, move along” response.
it certainly is easy to stick with the “it’s not my fault” answer, isn’t it? don’t want to actually have to be responsible or anything. i learned that from bush!
tommy’s message: don’t change your habits. don’t even worry about it. it’s fine to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs.
it’s fine to throw caution to the wind! what’s that noise my car’s making? ahhh, forget about it, it’ll be fine!
why are hurricanes forming in december? why were there so many hurricanes last year that they ran out of names? what do those scientists know anyway? i’ll just stick with the answer that makes me feel better!
wow, that sounds a lot like what the oil companies would have us believe.
that’s right — everything’s just fine! trust exxon and amoco, they’ve always got your best interests at heart. always. anybody that doesn’t believe this is obviously just a chicken little. oh, and by the way, terrorists are planning on flying an airplane into your house (all the more reason for the ‘terrorist surveillance program’), and the iraqis were obviously planning on invading america, which is why we had to have that war.
wait…now who’s chicken little? nothing wrong with preventative measures, right tommy?
sea levels only rose 8 inches? not a big deal you say? tell that to residents of the maldives, where the natural ground level is only 7-1/2 feet. the estimates are that the maldives will be uninhabitable in about 60 years. they must all be living in fear!
what stupid jackasses they are for being concerned that their home will be uninhabitable for their children and grandchildren.
and what a waste of time! surely they can find at least one scientist that will tell them everything will be just fine!
maybe exxon or amoco can find one for them?
May 26th, 2006 at 3:25 amProgressaurus Rex,
Hey Buddy, I don’t blame you for feeling the way you do about this subject. For a long time I believed the same thing you did. But when I found out there was an opposing side to the argument I did extensive research. I questioned everything I new in my heart from years of conditioning through high school and college classes. What I found out surprised me indeed.
The media will do anything for a hot story, and that’s not entirely their fault. You see they’re kinda like the oil companies, stomping on that ethical line just to bring in higher profits. Many times the journalist’s livliehood is tied to bringing in big stories. One thing I discovered in my research was articles from many credible magazines during the mid-70s. The headlines read “Major Global Cooling”, “Mass Starvation”, “60 million expected to starve from lack of food before year 2000″. These stories were loosely based an actual data collected from many respected scientists. So how many people ended up dying from the global cooling? Well none that I could find.
Although I don’t have time to go into great detail about any of my other findings, I will conclude by saying this: Don’t believe everything you hear in the news. After all these are the guys have said “eggs are good for you”, “eggs are bad for you”, “eggs are good for you”, “eggs are bad for you”, and on and on. They usually pull the global warming card at about the same time they run out of other news. You see Al Gore was correct in saying that global warming is a phenomenon widely accepted by the scientific community. What he didn’t bother to mention was that a great number of them do not blame it all on human activity and an even greater number of them do not see it as a major threat. For those scientists that hail the ideas of global warming, their research is usually largely funded by green groups. And they are the ones who always get media attention. Because without global warming, there would be no story and fewer papers sold. They are so convinced that they are right(largely due to hearing each others stories echoed again and again in the news), no opposing ideas could ever get through to their minds. They’ve become conditioned, much like I once was. But you and I, Progressaurus Rex know that we must always keep an open mind. We must always challenge what we always thought we knew.
May 26th, 2006 at 7:08 amHomeostasis will result no matter what the CO2 levels become.
Comment by Ron — May 26, 2006 @ 12:10 am
Really? Is that why there is life on Venus with abundant CO2 - or Mercury with no atmosphere, hence CO2? Oh, wait - there is no life on those other planets…
Your logic really is appalling.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:00 amOK OK Fugazi, I was only going against your argument regarding scientists and cars and plastics. I’m with you on the main issue: I fully support those scientists who say global warming exists and is a problem. Hell, I’m even running the BBC Climate Change Experiment on my computer at home.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:27 amPlease people there are very simple ways of cutting both our Co2 emitiions and conserving resources.
From simply using a clothes line to dry clothes instead of dryers.
From wearing warm clothes to massive heating in the winter.
From switxhing our electrronics off instead of having them on standby.
Reduce water comsumption from many ways like saving rain water
Washing cars with bucket of water instead of hosing.
Simple thing like these will reduce Co2 emittions by 30% thats more the double the goals set out the KYOTO protocal.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:39 amI’m pretty stupid, aren’t I? I’ll be the first to admit how dumb I really am. No one person is capable of knowing everything. J. Robert Oppenheimer might be an exception though. I consider him to be the smartest cat that ever has lived.
I didn’t say that the earth would have anymore life forms. Light, heat (temperature), water, and nutrients are essential for life to exist, air being a nutrient; limiting factors. There is a Redwood in California that is over 3600 years old. Life hangs in there. It’s tough as nails.
There is going to be only so much CO2. Approximately twenty years ago, there was an emission of CO2 from a lake in Africa somewhere. The CO2 became concentrated at the bottom of the lake until all at once a big bubble of it congealed and worked its way to the surface. Wildlife in the vicinity died within a few minutes.
Too high an amount of CO2 is bad, real bad.
However, it has to be in the atmosphere too. It is essential. The plants depend upon it. The prediction is 700 parts per million by the year 2050 CE. Double what is in the atmosphere now.
Who knows? There could be an explosion of increased plant life to offset the amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Life is just that unpredictable.
It’s a wild ride, that’s for sure.
May 26th, 2006 at 10:27 amRon,
Your logic is faulty - at best. Have you never heard of ‘Easter Island’? We’re doing the same thing on a global scale. One 3600 year old tree does not speak for the million other lives on this planet. Yet you’re finding inclusion in the exception rather than the other way around.
If we kill off the forests and coral reefs (which we ARE doing), there will be nothing to recycle the CO2 we exhale, and manufacture. How do you not get that?
May 26th, 2006 at 10:35 ammillion other lives on this planet
should be “lifeforms”
May 26th, 2006 at 10:37 am#80, Venus has reached homeostasis - unfortunately, the temperature to melt lead, but still it is stable…
#83 - wild ride? Yes probably. Unfortunately we’ve managed to put this civilization together (and get 6 billion souls at the same time) in a period of stable climate (relatively). So now we’re probably taking civilization out of the stable area and does anyone think our civilization and all 6 billion people will survive it?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am#79: What he didn’t bother to mention was that a great number of them do not blame it all on human activity and an even greater number of them do not see it as a major threat.
And you didn’t bother to mention exactly what is a “great number”
Zero peer-reviewed science articles, perhaps?
For those scientists that hail the ideas of global warming, their research is usually largely funded by green groups.
Green groups? You mean the federal government and universities? Are you willing to equally dismiss those who get funding from the oil companies?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:57 amVenus has reached homeostasis - unfortunately, the temperature to melt lead, but still it is stable…
Nothing is stable - everything is changing. Perhaps temporarily in the perception of a human life it seems that way. But, not in the big picture…
May 26th, 2006 at 12:43 pmThat the planet is warming is not in question; it is a measured observation. The question climatologists are attempting to answer is what is causing it and what will be it’s effects? The theory that has been proposed using the scientific method (see below) is that greenhouse gas emissions are causing it and that the effects will be catastrophic. To date, there have been no credible experiments conducted that contradict this theory. Conversely, there have been hundreds of published, peer reviewed, studies conducted by hundreds of independent researchers confirming it.
Who are these scientists that have disproved the anthropogenic global warming model? Where have they published their research? We must be reading different journals because I certainly haven’t seen them.
Why don’t you try getting your science from scientists instead of pundits, politicians, and corporations and their hired shills?
The Scientific Method
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it.
The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, “It’s only a theory.” For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because “Gravity is only a theory.”
May 26th, 2006 at 12:48 pmHumanity disgusts me.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:08 pmHumanity disgusts me.
Comment by Glenn Becker — May 26, 2006 @ 2:08 pm
Well said…
And agreed.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pmCould someone clarify something for me. Is Anvilhead doing some sort of satire or is serious? If its satire its pretty funny. If he’s serious its pretty scary. There must be a lot more Anvilheads out there who think this way.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pmThis just proves that conservatives are DUMBASSES! Conservatives are idiots and like Bush, they are anti-reality….just goes to prove that the vin dejo’s at the National Review are anti-realtiy…..
May 26th, 2006 at 5:04 pmTo basic science lesson,
May 26th, 2006 at 5:08 pmYes I’ll admit, I don’t have the numbers to show what percentage of scinetists have these views. I’m not sure if they’ve ever even taken a survey before. If I had some time, I’m sure I could gather this data for you. It would be interesting to find out. When I speak of green groups, I’m also including the EPA which is a government agency but is controlled by people who have a biased opinion on this subject. Their budget is approved by congress and they do everything they can to see that it increases each year.
None of your :facts: are true. What is true is that “Global Warming” is not supported by the data. In a word, and with great confidence it can be said,GW it is not happening. Global Warming is a lie. It is propaganda, like the non-existent WMD in Iraq.
*Computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, but data from weather satellites and balloon instruments show no warming whatsoever.
*The temperature record of the last hundred years is of poor quality and shows many discrepancies. Surface temperatures disagree with recent measurements from satellites and balloons. The urban heat island effect may skew the record.
*Without firm evidence that an appreciable warming will occur as a result of human activities, or that its consequences would be harmful, there can be no justification for bureaucratic remedies or any action beyond a “no-regrets” policy of energy efficiency and market-based conservation.
*General Circulation Models (GCMs) vary by 300% in their temperature forecasts, require arbitrary adjustments, and cannot handle crucial mesoscale and microscale cloud processes. Their forecasts of substantial warming depend on a positive feedback from atmospheric water vapor (WV).
*GCMs cannot account for past observations: the temperature rise between 1920 to 1940, the cooling to 1975, and the absence of warming in the satellite record since 1979. Various explanations need to be explored: reduced positive feedback from WV; increase in cloudiness; anthropogenic aerosols; man-made land changes; increasing air traffic; solar variations influencing climate.
*Severe storms and hurricanes have diminished in the past 50 years. A global warming trend is calculated to reduce the latitudinal temperature gradient and therefore the driving force for storms and severe weather.
**Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia , that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero). “
*Since the climate treaty was hatched in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, scientists have shown their dissent with four petitions: the 1992 “Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming,” with more than 100 signatures; the 1992 “Heidelberg Appeal,” with more than 4,000 signatures; the 1996 “Leipzig Declaration,” signed by some 130 prominent U.S. climate scientists, including several who participated in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); and, this year, the “Oregon Petition” which has been signed thus far by 17,000 U.S. scientists.
May 26th, 2006 at 6:30 pmRemember, Intelligent Design contains much more explanatory power than evolution because religious people SAY it’s true.
Remember, the last three decades of evidential global warming is a lie because religious people say it’s a lie. Don’t look at the facts yourself. Don’t evaluate the evidence yourself.
ONLY listen to the gov’t. Only listen to our utter failure of a President. He knows best. He has all the answers. YOU don’t. Don’t conserve any energy. Don’t even think of trying to figure out how to wean ourselves from the incredibly unstable Middle East (and their oil) and please just stop listening to all those liberal intellictuals who have actually written the articles that expose the facts of global warming.
Even if global warming isn’t caused by humans, the fact is that when the temperature rises, when the sea levels rise, when diseases move to the temperate zones that weren’t there before, when tens of millions of people have to move from the coasts, when ports and piers are inoperable because the oceans are too high, what will you blame then? Liberals?
When entire economies collapse because of refuges, loss of land, the failure of rains, the shutdown of the Gulf Steam and the growth of deserts because of rising temperatures, the result will be the SAME. We will all be affected. The fact of the matter is that we have the ability to slow the inevitable because we’re to blame for it.
May 26th, 2006 at 8:11 pmMatthew, I see a lot of assertions and few traceable facts. Why don’t you provide the references for people and let your facts be supported by your references? Its easy to say “no global warming and nothing to do with us”. But with the ozone holes and PCBs already under our belt, we know we can be responsible for significant global environmental damage, why is our impact on climate change impossible then?
May 26th, 2006 at 9:42 pmdoes anyone else find it ironic that the many of the same people that dismiss global warming are the same ones that bought the rationale for the iraq war?
let’s compare global warming (present tense) and the iraq war (past tense):
both are (were) based on the same premise that something bad might happen that we could stop by taking preventative measures now.
both have (had) “experts” that support the reasoning behind the need to act, and “experts” that deny there is a need to act.
pursuing the iraq war was clearly going to lead to death and destruction, the threat of disrupting the entire volatile middle east region, and alienating many of our allies. being wrong, or lying, about the rationale for war is at least gross incompetence and at most a crime against humanity.
yet that was an easy decision for many to embrace. $300 billion later, iraq is a mess, thousands are dead, terrorists have a new playground, oil prices are through the roof, leaders are dissembling or claiming they didn’t actually say what they actually said, and there’s no end it sight.
pursuing global warming will not lead to death and destruction. it will hopefully lead to lower pollution, cleaner air and water, a vast new renewable energy industry, energy independence (which, as we all should know, makes for better national security) and will have the added effect of weakening the oil companies that have a death grip on our country that adversely affects our foreign policy, economy, and political process.
yet this is heresy to some. instead, you’d prefer to protect the oil industry, which continually chooses profit over american wellbeing and security. you’d prefer to demonize the scientists that contend there is a problem, which is exactly what the oil industry would have you do. you prefer to demonize the media while failing to address the clear interest the oil and coal industries have in the status quo.
so the reality is there are those that willingly accept the path of death and destruction with unverifiable proof and shaky reasoning, but when it comes to making a positive change that is better for our communities, our country, our political process and our future, no matter what proof exists…well that’s too hard to accept, more proof is necessary.
that, my friends, is almost literally the definition of hypocrisy.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:03 pmHow is attacking global warming going to help our communities? The one piece of legislation that’s being decided on (kyoto protocal) would stifle the American economy. There would be a sharp increase in unemployment. We would lose our ability to compete with countries like China who has openly rejectected Kyoto. Most economists acknowledge this fact. Along with high unemployment comes increases in the crime rate. You think our trade deficit is bad now, just wait till Kyoto gets here. Enacting kyoto would be like putting a tariff on domestic goods. You see, this is the reason Bush is against such legislation. Hell it didn’t even pass under the Clinton administration. Nobody likes the fact that we’re dependent on oil. Bush has already addressed this to the country. He has already taken steps to ween us off of oil. You say that people who oppose global warming use shaky reasoning. How can this be? Were the scientists back in the mid-70s who claimed of a major global cooling using good reasoning? If they were wrong then, why should we believe them now? Well fortunately many don’t believe them. Which us a good thing since the stability of our economy and future depends on sound-minded people.
May 27th, 2006 at 8:08 am“We would lose our ability to compete with countries like China who has openly rejectected Kyoto.”
You will also lose that ability if the Earth become uninhabitable.
My disgust increases geometrically.
Business = Murder.
May 27th, 2006 at 10:40 amYour missing the point here. The Earth is not going to become uninhabitable. If you had read all of my other comments, you would have understood that. I have not heard a respose yet from anyone about the scientists’ claims 30 years ago that the Earth would go through a major cooling and their would be mass starvation from lack of food. Where’s the disgust now?
If you think that business is murder you must be an accessory to murder. Because right now your sitting down in front of a computer that was manufactured by a large corporation, drinking your soda that was produced by a major beverage manufacturer such as coca-cola, and your message was sent through cable and fiber-optic lines that were laid by very big communications providers. I’m sure you must be using a home-made bicycle or horse-drawn buggy so I’ll leave that one alone.
May 27th, 2006 at 1:23 pm“How is attacking global warming going to help our communities?”
do you actually have any reading and comprehension skills?
the answer, once again:
1) less pollution
2) cleaner air and water
3) emergence of a renewable energy industry (this can more than offset negative effects to economy)
4) ENERGY INDEPENDENCE (please get this through your thick skull)
5) weakening the oil companies! the influence this industry has over every aspect of american life is disgusting. it affects our national security, foreign policy, national elections and economy. it’s time to end all that. but of course you seem to like oil companies. a little hint - THEY COULDN’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOU.
“You say that people who oppose global warming use shaky reasoning”
actually i said nothing of the sort. i said the rationale for the iraq war was shaky reasoning.
i made no mention whatsoever of kyoto, so don’t know why that has to be the only solution, as you suggest.
what were those steps you say bush took to “ween us off oil”? can you name one thing he’s done that actually accomplishes any part of that goal?
bush has no plans whatsoever for this to happen. merely giving lip service to reality (for once) does not equal taking steps. is he going to be bold enough to require oil companies to spend half of their r&d budget (or any fraction whatsoever) on renewal energy? not a chance.
this isn’t a