An article published on Tech Central Station is buzzing around the right-wing blogosphere as the definitive rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It’s written by Dr. Robert Balling, a climatology professor at Arizona State University who has received over $400,000 in funding from ExxonMobil, OPEC and the fossil fuels industry over the last decade.
In return, Dr. Balling has done whatever he could to cast doubts on the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change. For example, in 1997 he was arguing “the planet has actually cooled over the past few decades.” His arguments have moderated somewhat since that time, but are no more accurate. You can find a full debunk of the misleading scientific arguments in Dr. Balling’s recent article – cleverly titled “Inconvenient Truths Indeed” – below.
(I recently debated Dr. Balling on many of these issues on the Jim Bohannon Show. You can listen to a portion of the debate.)
BALLING: “Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Kenya’s Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming.”
THE FACTS: Dr. Balling is distorting the scientific data. The climate scientists at realclimate.org explain studies of Kilimanjaro “only support the role of precipitation in the initial stages of the retreat, up to the early 1900’s.” Moreover, “the Kilimanjaro glacier survived a 300 year African drought which occurred about 4000 years ago.” The most likely explanation for why it has almost completely disappeared this time is “anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change.”
BALLING: “Many of Gore’s conclusions are based on the ‘Hockey Stick’ that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago.”
THE FACTS: First, as Dr. Balling acknowledges, Gore does discuss the “Medieval Warm Period” and other temperature fluctuations in the last thousands years. Gore simply illustrates that these changes were fundamentally different than what has occurred at the end of the 20th century. Scientific studies back this up. Realclimate.org explains, “Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.”
BALLING: “You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable ‘Summary for Policymakers’ in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that “No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analysed.”
THE FACTS: The IPCC report cited by Balling is from 2001, before Katrina or many of the other extreme weather events cited by Gore occurred. Moreover, Gore is careful not to assert that Katrina or any specific weather event was caused by global warming. Gore notes that climate models predict that as the concentration of carbon dioxide increases the frequency of extreme weather events increases. This is exactly what we’ve seen over the past several years.
DR. BALLING: “Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
THE FACTS: The quote cited by Dr. Balling continues :”This is not inconsistent with model results [predicting accelerating sea levels] due to the possibility of compensating factors and the limited data.” The IPCC study also notes that over the last 3,000 years, sea levels have increased “at an average rate of 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr” which is “about one tenth of that occurring during the 20th century.” Moreover, “The last time the planet may have been a degree or so warmer than today (about 120,000 years ago), sea level was around 5 to 6 meters higher.”
Report of shots fired at US Capitol, Rayburn House Office Building
May 26th, 2006 at 10:46 amArizona State? That’s the best they can do? Why not just co-author a study with some community college professors?
May 26th, 2006 at 10:52 amNo point in getting frustrated at the right’s repetitive attacks on the facts of any issue when it’s only 25% of the public that listens to them anyway.
May 26th, 2006 at 10:54 amIronically, a bipartisan resolution recently came out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee calling on the US to address the global climate change threat:
http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1148576619
May 26th, 2006 at 10:58 amGore drives the GOP into madness so he must be a real threat to them! Hillary and Bill Clinton have sold out to the Bush family, but Al Gore refuses to kneel to them or kiss the ring of Dubya!
May 26th, 2006 at 11:00 am#1. It was in the garage, probably a car backfiring, or maybe it’s just Dick Cheney, shooting pigeon nests or something.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:00 amIs the Doctor balling?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:15 amI guess that Dr. Balling would deny that the deserts in Arizona are expanding too; another inconvient truth.
Dr Bob Balling, seriously? How. Supremely. Appropriate.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:24 amI find it hard to understand why the Right fights the evidence on global warming. I can see why the coal and oil industries might, but what do Conservatives get by fighting obvious evidence? Global warming will continue to advance, if they win, and we will have ruined a perfectly good planet.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:30 am#9 Bbbbuuuutt think of all the money they would lose if they admitted they were wrong on Global Warming…the war…tax cuts for the rich…the rest of the enviromental damage…they can not admit the left is right on any thing because they live in a housu of cards and the wrong card falling will bring it all down, like the culture of corruption is starting to do.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:41 amThis isn’t a right wing/ Left wing issue. Although we’d have to say, it SHOULDN’T be.
I can see the fring railing against it cause they are such knee jerk idiots. But what of the sheep? Maybe, just maybe, this’ll open their eyes to the fact that their shepards are dolts.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:48 amDid anyone catch that ridiculous hour Faux News piece on Global Warming this weekend? It was so slimy I needed a shower afterwards.
By the way… There’s a Full version of Enron - Smartest Guys in the Room available on my blog. Good hi-resolution fast stream Flash video. Wow! What a Movie. What absolute bastards.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:48 amDr. B. Winkle, of Whatsamatta U. also expresses serious doubts about climate change. When asked about the mysterious appearance of tropical species from his hat, despite its location in a temperate zone, he replied, “I have to get me a new hat.”
And now here’s something we hope you’ll really enjoy!
May 26th, 2006 at 11:50 amDid anyone else listen to Gore on Rachel Maddow this morning? He was great. I am so depressed we cannot have someone as eloquent as he occupying the WH!
May 26th, 2006 at 11:51 amJules… Do you know if Rachel has podcasts on her site?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:56 amWhoa cool… Air America just launched a whole new web design this morning. Sweet, of to surf the new break.
May 26th, 2006 at 11:58 amIt’s all about creating a reality that you will be happy to live in. Welcome to the Matrix.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:09 pmOur Universities are filled with corporate hacks pretending to teach. The corruption of our institutions of learning is becoming overwhelming. The truth and honesty about the past and present actions of this nation might just as well be buried and given a funeral. Research is now funded by corporations for corporations. Higher education has become an extended form of high school and baby sitting by people that are more than happy to lead students into being nothing but corporate sycophants and/or government ideologues.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:23 pmPerhaps universities and colleges should be forced to show their badges of corporate sponsorship all over their crest of dishonor. Students could choose who they wanted to be brainwashed by.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:27 pmDoctors such as these are proponents of unintelligent creationism.
May 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pmIf I was Al Gore I would be encouraging the right wing wackos to draw as much attention to the movie as their bitter little hearts can muster. Look how their mindless attacks on Al Franken’s book helped its sales and the spread of his words. Look how the wing nuts attacks on Farenheit 911 helped spread the word and interest in that movie. The right wing nuts are the best free advertisement we have going for us. To quote our commander-in-cocaine “bring em on.”
May 26th, 2006 at 12:29 pm#9 - “I find it hard to understand why the Right fights the evidence on global warming.” - Comment by Leisure Guy
*******Many conservatives do not “fight the evidence” on global warming - we see it as a natural pattern of climate change which has occurred continuously during the earths’ history.
“…but what do Conservatives get by fighting obvious evidence?” - Comment by LG
May 26th, 2006 at 1:10 pm*******Progs KNOW the cycles of climatology and physical geography - but the name of the game is POWER. Unable to stand healthy competition which is a part of human make-up, they are waging a “slash and burn” campaign (no pun intended) to “equalize” wealth, consumption and resources. The “global spirit” which moves them is a charade - “One World” global control is the name of the game. Progs relish lecturing the rest of us on the rationality and intelligence of their decision making. But while rationality is the key ingredient of their positions, emoting is the employed method of whipping up hysteria in the masses. (Hint: The appropriately named “Chicken Little” of “the sky is falling” fame, was a proressive socialist.)
Re #13: That trick never works!
May 26th, 2006 at 1:11 pmwe see it as a natural pattern of climate change which has occurred continuously during the earths’ history.
So you have lived long enough to discount people who have based their lives on studing this…and there is no REPUTABLE scientific studies they contradict this…but that has not stopped EXXON et al from buying a few “scientists” to try
Comment by mighty aphrodite — May 26, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
“One World†global control is the name of the game.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — May 26, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
BY the CORPORATIONS…
emoting is the employed method of whipping up hysteria in the masses.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — May 26, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Bush…Cheney using the war on terra..the rebugs with the “attacks” on religion especially christianity..even though EVERY president ..ALL of them have been self professed Christians..and the Vast majority of politicians in BOTH parties…the goberment wants to destry christianity just ask the reich wingers who spout this to ask for money or votes…
May 26th, 2006 at 1:24 pmTo the trolls: Isn’t it better to err on the side of caution? Even from a non-global-warming standpoint, wouldn’t you like to see pollution decreased so that you don’t cough when you walk down a city street? Wouldn’t you like to live or travel in a big city and be able to see in the distance without the haze of smog? Wouldn’t you like to go fishing without having to doublecheck to make sure the mercury levels aren’t too high in the fish you want to eat? I just don’t understand the “pro-pollution” mindset. It makes no sense to me. It’s as if the right wingers are SOOOO concerned about not agreeing with anything remotely leftist that they immediately take the opposite stance. We’re not asking that you adopt our “radical” positions on extreme regulation. That’s why we debate and compromise. (Gee, what happened to doing that?) But to just completely ignore the issue and essentially say that corporations should have free will to pollute relying on the market to somehow regulate itself through supply and demand? That’s just craziness.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:39 pmNutty Republican reported to be the one firing gun shots in Rayburn building apparently upset over the Immigration Bill.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:40 pmFrom the IPCC report:
Tide gauge data show that global average sea level rose between 0.1 and 0.2 metres during the 20th century.
Oh my god! That’s the length of my middle finger! We’re going to die!
What a bunch horse crap.
But it’s not getting any warmer in Homer, Alaska. Can Judd explain that? Oh, he’ll probably say it’s Exxon’s fault.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm#27, try thinking before typing BearManPig, you might find it useful. Why don’t you try - I’ll bet you can figure out why I’m saying this about your post all by yourself.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:54 pmMany conservatives do not “fight the evidence†on global warming - we see it as a natural pattern of climate change which has occurred continuously during the earths’ history.
This is a standard canard. “Climate ‘changes’, so what’s the big deal?” What this statement fails to recognize is that it’s the rate of change that matters here. If you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in a few short decades, you’ll get a climate change within a few decades. Sure. Change is “natural”. OK, then it’s “natural” that you’ll get rainfall patterns migrating away from the midwest so that we get decades of crop failures. It’s “natural” that the oceans rise and coastal cities are flooded. It’s “natural” that we get more lethal hurricanes hitting our coasts. So let’s just keep pumping out the CO2 and funding the Ballings of the world to tell us the bedtime stories that Western Fuels wants us to hear…
May 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pmIs it only the funding sources of those whose positions that we disagree with that we take issue or is this a methodology that we use in all cases?
May 26th, 2006 at 2:30 pmIf you’re partisan, you take issue with the funding. If you’re a scientist, or want to apply the scientific method at all, you take issue with the points made. Misrepresentation of peer-reviewed articles, for example (that expanding Greenland ice sheet comes to mind). Or bad methodology and faulty logic (see junkscience argument that increased sightings of polar bears scrounging through trash is evidence that their population is thriving). Or an examination of the evidence. Or recognition that peer-reviewed science journals not only represent science, they are literally the scientific method as it is practiced today.
Funding sources are of political interest only. Scientifically speaking, the CEI has the intellectual standing of a doofus.
May 26th, 2006 at 2:47 pmDoes anyone here know just how many miles Al Gore has flown in a private personal jet to spread his message of “taking care of the planet”? If he really cared about the environment, he’d be flying commercial like the rest of us peons. No, he is just another example of a limosine liberal just filling you mindless drones with crap and you all just eat it up! When Al starts to act like the environmentalist he pretends to be, I’ll listen.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:07 pmIs it only the funding sources of those whose positions that we disagree with that we take issue or is this a methodology that we use in all cases?
No, the funding source is just an obvious conflict of interest.
The other problem is that there’s often no context given by a media outlet when “skeptics” are granted a soapbox for their views.
These views are regularly shot down during the peer review process. Either that or their views aren’t even submitted to peer review–that way they can avoid anyone checking what they’re saying. If they’re not willing or able to submit to the process of qualified colleagues checking their work, how can we trust what they’re saying?
What they say may sound to us like science. But time and time again, they say things that are basically not true, or misleading in some basic way. (You’ll hear their peers all enumerating the basic mistakes they’re making, but they’ll keep making them anyway.) They have a long pattern of this. But up until the last few years, the media kept wanting them back as token “skeptic” talking heads. (As the anti-intellectual right always reminds us, just because you have a Phd after your name doesn’t make you competent. But stick a bow tie and pocket protector on that man and he looks good enough for Fox News…)
See also: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2006/ 05/ 25/ national-review-warming/
May 26th, 2006 at 3:10 pmDoes anyone here know just how many miles Al Gore has flown in a private personal jet to spread his message of “taking care of the planet�
Yes, personalize everything. Don’t discuss whether climate change is true or not. Attack the person. Watch the right closely. This is what they’re always trying to do. Don’t look at the facts. Look at Al Gore. Or Saddam Hussein. Just fill in the blank.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:14 pmWhen Al starts to act like the environmentalist he pretends to be, I’ll listen.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
NOT you will just find another excuse to be the reich wing spittle spewer you are
May 26th, 2006 at 3:17 pmAl Gore ownes a bunch of Occidental oil stock. The only oil co he goes after is Exxon/Mobile. Jeez figure that out. Follow the money.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#34
Oh, I see. Its not ok for me to attack Al Gore, but perfectly fine for you and the rest of your liberal friends to say horrible things about President Bush during a time of war. Al Gore cares no more about the environment than I do. Do your research and you will see what a hypocrite you and Al both are.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pmOk, if they are going to trot out Balling and other weak scientists like Pat Michaels, here is the deal: out of the 5-6 client skeptics exactly one has a decent scientific track record, and that is Lindzen. He held out for a long time on the hypothesis that increased moisture would induce increased cloud cover that would produce increased reflection of sunlight (albedo) that would induce a negative climate feedback (cooling). Well the jury is in on that, and the net feedback from increased water vapor is positive — the greenhouse aspect of water trumps the clouds.
Now, as to Prof. Balling, his record shows that he is a weak scientist who has gained public recognition in proportion to his willingness to stump on behalf of the fossil fuel companies. Within the science community he is in a lower tier. This is not just me saying this, it can be read directly from his record of scientific citations. If you look at someone who is of the caliber to be in the National Academy of Science, you will typically find a record with several thousand citations (meaning other scientists acknowledge the work as influencing them through an explicit reference in their paper), a number of citations per paper exceeding 20-30, and at least a few papers with very large numbers of citations. For example, here are the stats on Lindzen, the one skeptic with science street cred, taken from the web of science data base:
Lindzen: Total papers on Web of Science 187
Highest Cited single paper 860
Total citations 4878
Cites per year since Phd (1964) 116
Cites per paper 26
For comparison, here are three leading but by no means atypical scientists who share the very dominant consensus that warming is happening because of us–Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, and Kevin Trenberth:
Santer: Total papers on Web of Science: 49
Highest cited: 321
Total citations: 1302
Cites per year since PhD (1988): 72
Cites per paper 27
Wigley: Total papers on Web of Science: 160
Highest cited single paper: 420
Total citations: 5129
Cites per year since PhD (1967) 131
Cites per paper 32
Trenberth: Total papers on Web of Science 147
Highest Cited single paper 669
Total citations 5155
Cites per year since Phd (1972) 152
Cites per paper 35
Clearly, the records of Trenberth and Wigley by this measure are as impressive or more so than Lindzen’s, and Santer, who is considerably younger, is on the way.
How does Balling stand?
Balling: Total papers on Web of Science 118
Highest Cited single paper 59
Total citations 760
Cites per year since Phd (1972) 28
Cites per paper 6
You could take two of the most cited papers from Wigley, Trenberth, or Santer, and beat the entire career of Balling.
I repeat: Balling is a weak research scientist with little influence in his field who has gained a measure of profile by the publicity machine of the fossil fuel industry who fund his research and trumpet his inconsequential results.
If they are going to trot out such `skeptics’ we need to point out how week their credibility is.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:22 pmIn 2004, Al Gore was caught speeding near Astoria, Oregon and was issued a $141 speeding ticket. Gore was in a Hertz rental car and was clocked at 75 mph along Highway 26 where the posted speed limit is 55. It was reported that Gore was very polite and courteous during the traffic stop. Conservative news reports immediately aired the story, questioning why such an environmentally conscious person would rent a low gas mileage four-door Lincoln, and why he would be wasting more gas by speeding.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:24 pmDuring the 2000 presidential campaign, Gore was accused of hypocrisy because of the behavior of corporations that had contracted to extract resources from land owned by his family. The corporations were the Occidental Petroleum Corporation and the Pasminco Zinc Mine.
Al Gore owned (indirectly through his father’s estate) several thousand shares of Occidental Petroleum Corporation. Occidental Petroleum angered environmentalists by trying to open a new oil/gas drilling field in Colombia. Critics of Al Gore, including Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair in their Al Gore: A User’s Manual, (2000), argued that the connection between Al Gore and Occidental Petroleum tycoon Armand Hammer was by no means “indirect,” as Armand Hammer was not only a close personal friend and business partner of Senator Al Gore, Sr., but was also (until Hammer’s death in 1990) a major mentor, advisor, and financial backer of the political career of Al Gore, Jr. However, Gore did not purchase the shares and did not have control over the estate with which to sell them. Defenders of Gore dismissed this as a claim of ‘guilt by inheritance’.
Additionally, the Gore family licensed mining rights on their Cumberland River Valley farm to Pasminco Zinc, which was fined in 2000 for exceeding water pollution limits. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Agency found that zinc levels in the Caney Fork river near the mine were 1.480 mg/L (milligrams per L); the maximum allowed monthly average was .65 mg/L, and the daily allowed maximum was 1.30 mg/L. Therefore, Pasminco Zinc was found on one occasion to exceed the daily maximum for zinc pollution by about 14%.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pmIn 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, Newsweek magazine reported that Gore was pressured by North Carolina Senator Terry Sanford and congressmen Jamie Clarke to ease up on his campaign to prevent Champion International paper mill from dumping tons of chemicals and byproducts into the Pigeon River. According to Newsweek, Gore complied with their request, writing to the EPA and asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke then endorsed Gore, and Gore won the North Carolina primary. (”Gore’s Pollution Problem”, Newsweek, 1997-11-24)
May 26th, 2006 at 3:25 pmAl Gore ownes a bunch of Occidental oil stock. The only oil co he goes after is Exxon/Mobile. Jeez figure that out. Follow the money.
Exxon/Mobile is the biggest funder of anti-climate change groups, so that does make sense that he’s going after it.
Some oil companies are trying to change, at least on the surface. BP’s name is now “Beyond Petroleum”.
Also, as a stockholder you can exersize some influence. I believe there are some nuns who own oil company stock (I forget which one) because they get to speak out at stockholders’ meetings.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:26 pmCritics of Gore as an environmental hypocrite claim that Gore has shown preference for corporate interests over conservation. Gore was an ardent supporter of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor, and later of the Fast Flux Test Facility in the Hanford nuclear reservation. Gore’s efforts to secure an Endangered Species Act wavier for the Tellico Dam on the Little Tennessee River were said to have paved the way for the gutting of the ESA. According to David Brower, “This was the beginning of the end of the Endangered Species Act.” Environmentalists who considered Gore an environmental phony pointed to Gore’s persistent support of increased logging in the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, and elsewhere; Gore’s support of NAFTA despite public concerns about its environmental consequences; Gore’s support, as Vice-President, for the WTI hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio (despite his having vowed during the 1992 campaign to oppose it); Gore’s engineering of what some environmentalists called a “missiles for dead whales” deal with Norway; Gore’s championing of a “pollution credits” system at the Kyoto Conference in December 1997; etc. These and other allegedly environmentally harmful actions attributed to Al Gore, as well as criticisms of Gore by various prominent environmentalists, are detailed in Chapter 13 of Al Gore: A User’s Manual, by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. Although the Sierra Club endorsed Gore for President in July of 2000, the vote was not unanimous. There was some sentiment on the Club’s Board of Directors to endorse Ralph Nader in 2000, as some believed that Gore’s actual environmental record was deficient and that Gore had largely been only rhetorically pro-environment.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:27 pmEither Randy is in love with Gore…or Rove has an all out blitz against Gore because he already beat them once…..
May 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pmBut why are we talking about Al Gore? His movie is about climate change. Whether or not I like Steven Speilberg personally, I can still learn something from Schindler’s List.
Again, the right LOVES to personalize things. Because they can’t win on the facts. Those pesky facts. Hire think tanks and marketing organizations to sweep them away.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:30 pmEven though there hasn’t been global warming in the last few years (there has actually been global cooling)… Al Gore still released a movie about the horrible Global Warming EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!! That’s right… an EMERGENCY!!!!!! I found out one hillarious fact…
First… here’s a quote from the drudge:
“The most vulnerable part of the Earth’s environment is the very thin layer of air clinging near to the surface of the planet, that we are now so carelessly filling with gaseous wastes that we are actually altering the relationship between the Earth and the Sun - by trapping more solar radiation under this growing blanket of pollution that envelops the entire world,” Vice President Gore told the U.N. Global Warming conference of 159 nations this morning in Koyto, Japan.
Gore had more to say…
“The extra heat which cannot escape is beginning to change the global patterns of climate to which we are accustomed. Our fundamental challenge now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are causing the problem.”
Now for the funny part…
The message is serious. So serious in fact, the DRUDGE REPORT has calculated that Vice President Al Gore is burning more than 439,500 pounds of fuel, or 65,600 gallons, at a cost of more than $131,000 on his 16,000 mile daytrip, just to deliver the warning.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:31 pmGore’s plane, a Boeing 707 gas guzzler burns on average 4.1 gallons a mile. The complete Washington to Florida to Washington to Alaska to Japan and return to Washington trip calculated from commercial air mileage tables is just over 16,000 miles total. Gas gallons needed for AIR FORCE II to go 16,000 miles: 65,600. Applying the average price of $2.01 per gallon of Jet A to the 16,000 mile r/t — the fuel cost alone passes $131,000.00. There are 6.7 pounds per gallon of jet fuel. Total pounds of fuel burned on Gore’s Global Warming Express — 439,500.
How about we start with you Mr. Hypocritical Vice President… How about you stop causing “global warming” yourself?
Heck, if nuclear power helps mitigate climate change, maybe it can be a good thing. I have doubts, but maybe it will, in the end.
But anyway, I don’t want to spend the afternoon debating with robo-trolls with too much time on their hands. It’s a fine summer afternoon. This is it for my comments on this thread…
May 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#44
Are you an idiot? YOU are the one in love with Al Gore. You are both idiots yet you are too stupid to know any better. Keep thinking that Al is President. Keep harboring all that anger. Keep losing.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:34 pmTerryTurd, this middle finger is for you…
Boy, it sure is getting hot up here in Homer. Not.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:39 pmRandy, I am with the person above who says you have too much time on your hands, but you are dead wrong that global warming is not happening. the global mean temperature has been on a steady upward tick for the last 25 years, and overall has risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius since the industrial revolution. It seems that all you can do is launch ad hominem attacks against Gore rather than deal with the reality of what he is talking about.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:48 pm#49, Well that was a deep thought wasn’t it? Feel free to make a well-sourced factual comment whenever you think you are up to it…
May 26th, 2006 at 3:51 pmAre you an idiot? YOU are the one in love with Al Gore. You are both idiots yet you are too stupid to know any better. Keep thinking that Al is President. Keep harboring all that anger. Keep losing.
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Somebody’s got his panties in a bunch..and it is cutting off oxygen to his brain….
May 26th, 2006 at 3:52 pm#50
Don’t get me wrong - I never said that global warming is not a reality. I believe in global warming. I just don’t think that man is responsible for it. My evidence is that the sun has whole lot more effect on our climate than we do and it happens to go through cycles. Why are the polar caps on Mars melting? The only explanation is that the sun is going through a warming cycle. Who knows, in a few decades, the cycle could go the other way and start cooling the planet again. My point is, there just isn’t enough evidence to prove that man is 100% responsible for what has been happening and before we do something rash and stupid, lets think first.
May 26th, 2006 at 3:57 pmMy evidence is that the sun has whole lot more effect on our climate than we do and it happens to go through cycles.
And you degrees which give you the right to criticize the scientific evidence presented by Al Gore..he is taking the best scientific studies and scientists and combining them into his presentation..where are YOU getting your FACTS from the GOP talking points or the EXXON memo about how bad al is going to be for profits if the sheeple actually wake up and believe him….
Why are the polar caps on Mars melting?
Um… lack of an atmosphere…ice melts and vaporises in a vacuum…look it up…
I never said that global warming is not a reality. I believe in global warming. I just don’t think that man is responsible for it.
Man is not responsible for the heat just the extra CO2 which traps the heat much longer…..
The only explanation is that the sun is going through a warming cycle.
based upon what scientific evidence not your “gut”
Who knows, in a few decades, the cycle could go the other way and start cooling the planet again.
You surely do not thus your bloviating…
My point is, there just isn’t enough evidence to prove that man is 100% responsible for what has been happening and before we do something rash and stupid, lets think first.
Not 100% but enough that we are beginning to tip the ecosystem out of the balance that has existed the entire time we have existed on this planet….., and as for rash and stupid placing an economic gain for a small segment of the earth’s population over the living conditions of all of the planet that just about describes it doesn’t it
Comment by Randy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
May 26th, 2006 at 4:08 pmSo, was this warming cycle with the sun was responsible for the Ozone holes?
May 26th, 2006 at 4:15 pmWhy are the polar caps on Mars melting?
Um… lack of an atmosphere…ice melts and vaporises in a vacuum…look it up…
BUT WHY NOW? THE ICE HAS BEEN THERE AT LEAST SINCE THE MID SIXTIES WHEN WE STARTED SENDING PROBES TO MARS AND NOW BECAUSE YOU TELL ME THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE, THE ICE IS MELTING? YOU REALLY ARE AN IDIOT!
Mars does in fact have an atmosphere and it mainly consists of carbon dioxide, the green house gases you are all so afraid of. In fact, the recent missions to Mars used parachutes in the atmosphere to slow them down until the air bags could deploy. You can’t do that in a vacuum. You really need to do your research!
I really can’t waste any more of my time here talking to you sheeple. Have fun this weekend seeing Al’s movie!
May 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pmRandy, it is not the sun. Ruled out. Here is the deal: increaesed solar output leads to a uniform warming of the lower atmosphere — the sunlight is absorbed by the earth and reradiated in the infrared and partially absorbed by the atmosphere — the greenhouse effect.
But increased warming due to increased heat trapping gases at fixed solar output leads to lower atmosphere warming (more energy trapped by the increased greenhouse gas concentration) and cooling in the upper atmosphere (the increased greenhouse gases steal from there, so to speak, because they trap more heat down low). That is exactly what has been observed.
If you want more, go to http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/439.htm
which is the science of Climate Change report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, chap. 12 on attributions. Look at Figs. 12-5,12-8. While the simulations of a climate modified by greenhouse gases, aerosols/soot, and ozone depletion does not perfectly explain the observation, it is equally clear that warming from the sun alone is ruled out.
By the way, two of the leading skeptics Richard Lindzen of MIT and Pat Michaels of Virginia , were reviewers of this report. So they had input. See Appendix IV.
The jury is in. The IPCC has done their homework , and so has Gore. Trash him if you will, but the man has been all over this issue since the late 60s when he learned about it in college. Regarding the fact that Gore has to live in the modern world and use cars and planes, well, be real. If the story above about the lincoln is true, it may well be that Gore showed up at the airport and the PRius he requested was out. I had to rent a car a while back, requested the smallest they had and what was available was a huge Mercury. Gore has obviously made the choice to get the word out and that demands travel. If you doubt his motives, please note that the man is giving the show for free . Yes, as opposed to the many many bucks that Bill Clinton has earned as a speaker post presidency, Al Gore is going around giving a totally free presentation on climate change because he sincerely wants to effect change. That I call refreshing and a sign of deep sincerity in his belief.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:42 pmHave a nice weekend worring about how bad your stock portfolio will be after evcerybody sees Al’s movie…worry about your money not the ecosystem
May 26th, 2006 at 4:47 pm#56, still Randy, you could do some research too. I google-monkeyed Mars polar icecaps for a few minutes and couldn’t find anything conclusive that said polar ice caps on Mars are melting because the sun is pumping out more heat than it has since we’ve been looking. So show me your link, I’m curious too.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#57, Randy, that’s the kind of research I talking about. A hypothesis, some examination of the facts and the evidence and a conclusion. I’m open to be persuaded, but I think CalGuy has you by the balls.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:51 pmLiars.
Tell the illusionists to leave the science to the scientists.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:52 pmComment by Randy — May 26, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Somebody’s got his panties in a bunch..and it is cutting off oxygen to his brain….
Comment by Clif — May 26, 2006 @ 3:52 pm
Maybe he’s been breathing too much CO2, they it call “life” which would confirm it does impair brain funciton.
May 26th, 2006 at 5:15 pm#25 - Dear Parrotlover - The air quality in smoggy Los Angeles is vastly improved since the 1960’s - quit believing all the propaganda you “parrot” in your posts. Conservatives are NOT “pro-pollution” - many of us believe - as I said clearly before - that climate changes (BOTH warmer conditions and COLDER conditions) are NORMAL processes in a cyclical pattern.
“It’s as if the right wingers are SOOOO concerned about not agreeing with anything remotely leftist that they immediately take the opposite stance.” _More clever insight
May 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pm*******Clever observation - and also true for left-wingers (like this site) and it’s regular moonbats - ANYTHING BUSH OR CONSERVATIVE IS REASON ENOUGH TO TAKE THE OPPOSITE STANCE. What’s that old saying about rocks and glass houses??
#29 - “What this statement fails to recognize is that it’s the rate of change that matters here.” - Comment by JJ
*****What your response to my statement fails to recognize is the LACK of consistency in the climatic rate change. A meteor strike may have a different “effect timeline” than that of a massive volcanic eruption (i.e. Mt Pinatubo, Mt. St Helens, Pompeii,). Yes it is natural for seas to expand and land to recede and for landmasses to form from the sea. Throughout mankind, people have been displaced by climatic changes. It’s called LIFE.
As I have said, before and progs fail to address, the EnvironWACK “cause du’ jour” is about attaining AND maintaining political and economic power for the socialist/progressive movement. Nothing more - nothing less.
May 26th, 2006 at 7:01 pmMighty Aphrodite- what a naive perspective. Look , read my posts. Climate change is here, it is real, and it is NOT simply part of natural cycles. The evidence is way too strong, and you should just go read the reports I refer to (which noted skeptics Lindzen and Michaels reviewed and were unable to derail). What a ridiculous charge about progressives. The climate scientists who work on this are as far as I know all over the map politically. What distinguishes them from a de facto postmodernist like you and all followers of the cult of Bush is that they live in the reality based community. They evaluate evidence and proceed rationally. Conservativism per se does not exclude this. For example, Paul O Neil is a bonafide conservative. He also believes that climate change is a serious problem and believes there are approaches to solving it. These may not be the same ones I would advocate, but he is a member of the reality based community AND a conservative.
Quite frankly, Exxon Mobil and some (but not all) fossil fuel companies besides them are publicly irrational and privately rational. They know in private that this poses a threat to their well being because we have to diminish the use of fossil fuels to deal with this and they don’t want to go there. They are simply using public stalling tactics to try to forestall the inevitable. If you don’t buy this, look instead at the response of eg BP who has decided to publicly accept climate change and at least talk a good one about moving beyond this.
This is not a conservative versus progressive issue. It is a reality vs. irrationalism issue, and nothing about being a conservative or a progressive precludes acting in a rational fashion. The orientation merely dictates the policy approaches.
May 26th, 2006 at 7:20 pmDear Calguy - How naive of you! “The climate scientists who work on this are as far as I know all over the map politically.” Wanna bet??
Surprisingly, I don’t disagree with you about scientific data, although you must be aware that middle ranges are not utilized in many scientific models tracking climate change. My contention is not the “evil progressive” scientists - but the “progressive/socialists” behind the curtain are utilizing ranges in the data to achieve a SPECIFIC political/economic agenda.
And then we have the “corporation = EVIL” doomsayers - why would they want to kill all of their customers?? That’s a pretty drastic course to take if you want out of business….
May 26th, 2006 at 8:25 pmhttp://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C
Gore’s “good friend” Dr. Roy Spencer has some inconvenient questions…
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself — you might remember me…I’m the one you mistook for your “good friend,” UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back — I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted….I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists’ predictions now?
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son’s tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I’m confused…do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven’t there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy… you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I’m sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration’s view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can’t understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a “moral issue,” and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.
Your “Good Friend,”
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
May 26th, 2006 at 8:37 pm#67, MM thanks for that. Your commentary or Roy Spencer’s? No matter: I’ll probably go and see the film and it is helpful to have a balanced rebuttal to study going in.
May 26th, 2006 at 9:20 pm(Sorry, broken link: http://www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 306/ 5702/ 1686.)
May 26th, 2006 at 9:35 pmMighty Aphrodite: Throughout mankind, people have been displaced by climatic changes. It’s called LIFE.
But throughout mankind, we haven’t been doubling the level of CO2. What would you think are the consequences of doing this? Nothing?
And throughout mankind we haven’t been gathering evidence like this: http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
Even if you disregard the NAS, NOAA, the IPCC (which you shouldn’t disregard) the temperature goes up. CO2 levels go up. CO2 has the property of trapping heat. According to Occam’s Razor, that’s the most likely suspect. And that’s what the science says, and that’s what 99.9% of the scientific community says. So let’s put our head back in the sand?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:33 pmYour “Good Friend,â€
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Comment by memphis minnie — May 26, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
This guy reads like a far-rightwing conspiracy quack. His ‘questions’ made a lot of assumptions and absolutist statements. I just really love it when people speak for all others - in terms of ‘all’ and ‘never’ and ‘always’ - even if infered or implied. It immediately lets me know that they are arguing on emotion and/or fear and not logic. And the false ‘politeness’ and backhanded compliments are nauseating - very condescending. Dr. Spencer needs to pull his head out of his own rear end.
May 27th, 2006 at 9:25 amBack in 1998…
The nation’s two top authorities on global satellite temperature data–Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville–came to Washington last week to discuss the reasons they’re not too concerned about a putative global warming. Speaking before an audience of approximately 80 Congressional staff, policy analysts, and journalists, Spencer and Christy covered points familiar to scientists who have studied the global warming issue, all of them underscoring deficiencies in the global climate models:
To begin with, they said, all weather–clouds, rain, wind–acts to remove excess heat from the Earth’s surface, but the models do not explicitly account for these rain systems. Water vapor makes up 95 percent of the greenhouse effect; half of the IPCC-predicted global warming depends on how water vapor responds to increased carbon dioxide. Yet the climate models do not have the cloud microphysics to predict how water vapor will respond. As the models have improved over the last decade, the IPCC’s “best estimate” of global warming by the year 2100 continues to be revised downward: 3.3 degrees C in 1990, 2.8 degrees C in 1992, and 2 degrees C in 1996.
Spencer and Christy stressed that the surface temperature record is not global and has not been independently validated. The satellite data covers the entire Earth and has been independently validated by balloon radiosonde data. (Another study independently validating the satellite record will appear shortly in the Journal of Geophysical Research.) Global climate models–the foundation for the Global Climate Treaty–base their forecasts on temperatures in the lower troposphere (not the surface itself), which is the area tracked by satellites. At this point, said Christy, GCMs say the satellite temperatures should be running 50 percent higher than surface temperatures. Instead, surface temperatures are going up and lower troposphere temperatures are heading slightly down.
Dr. Christy criticized the press briefing two weeks ago by Vice President Al Gore, saying attempts to use the recent El Nino to whip up the media on global warming was a case of picking examples that sounded impressive but on closer examination had no merit. For example, Gore cited 5 small U.S. states as setting record high temperatures during the first five months of 1998, when the El Nino was having its strongest impact on U.S. weather. But Christy said that the selected five states amounted to just 1.3 percent of the total land area of the United States. Of all of the 50 states, he said, 37 had record high temperatures posted before 1940, and only 13 set records since then. Christy added that the Earth has been generally cooler for the past 5,500 years, a period often referred to by scientists as “neoglacial.” Six thousand years ago it was much warmer than today and Norway’s glaciers had completely disappeared. Now Norwegian glaciers are advancing at record speed.
The Vice President is adamant, however, even risking embarrassment to shove the Kyoto Protocol down the public’s collective throat. Associated Press reported last Wednesday, June 17, that Gore was threatening to shut down the federal government if Congress failed to approve the Clinton Administration’s proposed environmental spending. Heading the list is the five-year, $6.3 billion package of tax credits, subsidies, and research grants targeting the global warming issue. Speaking to a group of Green activists, Gore hinted that President Clinton would veto any legislation containing riders that would choke off the proposed spending. “We are putting Congress on notice,” he said. “We are drawing the line.” A White House official, who asked to remain anonymous, said it was “premature” to say specifically if Clinton would veto any bills.
As American humorist P.J. O’Rourke has said: “Some people will do anything to save the Earth, except take a science course.” Well, some who have “taken a science course” have a higher calling. A colleague recently forwarded to us “A Scientist’s Belief in God and the Earth,” from the March 18th Financial Times of London. The article is a profile of Sir John Houghton, co-chairman of the IPCC, who is described as a “devout Christian” and “a man who occupies an interesting position at the point where science, government and faith meet–some might say clash…”
Houghton makes some interesting statements. He “admits that, in spite of the refinement of science, there is still uncertainty about where the climate is actually heading, especially…how the climate may change.” According to Sir John, who obviously hasn’t talked to Vice President Gore lately, “People haven’t seen global warming yet. It’s all in the future. We can’t expect them to take drastic action yet in the face of these uncertainties. It’s not that they don’t care. They just can’t be bothered…” Still, reasonable evidence isn’t really necessary, in his view. Governments simply need to show a little “leadership,” take on “the high moral and spiritual challenges” of environment, population growth, allocation of resources, etc., even in the face of uncertainty. In other words, as Houghton said in a Times of London article last year, cutting energy use by more than 50 percent “can contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind’s greed and indifference.”
May 27th, 2006 at 11:31 amBack in 1998
That’s excluding nearly a decade of work.
All of them underscoring deficiencies in the global climate models.
Not all the evidence for human-caused warming uses the models. There are plenty of data points independent of the models:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
Some people will do anything to save the Earth, except take a science course.
If you know anything about the science, you would know that Christy and Spencer are part of a very small minority of skeptics. And these skeptics don’t seem to publish much. See this study about how since 1993, 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming have been published. 0 of them challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity:
http://www.sciencemag.org/ cgi/ content/ full/ 306/ 5702/ 1686
And the first sentance of the NAS study, commissioned by the president in 2001, reads:
“Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.”
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3713&method=full
I mean, what more do you need? You have to start delving into paranoid conspiracy theories to deny the problem at this point.
May 27th, 2006 at 12:20 pmMemphis minnie it is polite to reference a direct quote when you post …other wise it could be thought your are posting anothers work as your own…
Here is the link for the above quote
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=187
And you see minni mind why does the web sirte you draw this quote fromlinks to a website for the article that has no new articles or updates beyond 2000…six years ago…
Wonder what the good Dr Singer would have thought about somebody who was using the knowledge of 1963 to rate the moon shot of 1969
May 27th, 2006 at 12:32 pmAnd Minnie you should check out your sources better here is the areas of expertise for Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
EvAreas of Expertise:
* Satellite data temperature
* Hurricanes
* Interfaith Stewardship Alliance
* Evangelical Movement and Global warming
* General climate change issues
from: http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267
Could you enlighten us here as to exactly what isInterfaith stwardship Allaince has to do with science,
or Evangelical Movement and Global warming could that be faith based science? lets see what else he has to say…..
08 Aug 2005
Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as “fact,” I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.
Same page just a little lower…he does not look too scientific does he NOW
and another of his serious scientific proposals…
I’ve decided it’s time to get serious about Global Warming. The national academies of science of eleven nations recently united to warn us of impeding climatic doom resulting from our careless inflation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from its God-ordained 19th century value of 0.00029 to the current astronomical magnitude of 0.00038. With increasing fears that this extra plant food will cause a choking of our cities and highways with unwanted greenery, and the Russians’ concern that winter temperatures will warm above -40 deg. F, thus changing the hibernation habits of the endangered Siberian snow snake, I must now join the chorus of voices calling for action.
Unfortunately, most of the bills currently being debated by congress (McCain-Lieberman; Domenici-Bingaman) to help reduce the use of fossil fuels will fix only a miniscule part of the problem, with literally unmeasurable effects on global temperatures in the coming decades.
In response to this lack of leadership, I have decided it is time to campaign for my own legislation. I am hopeful that my ideas will take our congressional leadership by storm, and become part of the energy bill now being debated in the Senate.
The Spencer-Spencer bill (the name reflects my desire to get full credit for these ideas) will meet the challenges of Global Warming head-on, avoiding most our projected future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I propose a gradual phase-in, over periods of up to 10 days, of the following measures:
1) Addition of a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. This will
result in an immediate reduction in gasoline use, probably remove our
dependence on foreign oil, and there will be no need to drill in ANWR.
Millions of displaced workers in the petroleum industry will be needed in
the rapidly-expanding bicycle manufacturing sector. As a side benefit,
the Europeans will no longer be jealous over our low fuel taxes (the real
reason for current poor relations), and a new era of cooperation between
the U.S. and the EU will emerge.
2) The average gas mileage of cars will be increased to meet a mandated
100 mpg. This will force the automakers to use their high-mpg fuel injection
and lean combustion technologies that they have been hiding from us
through collusion with the petroleum industry (I read about this terrible
injustice while waiting in the checkout line at the grocery store).
3) Electricity generation will be required to be at least 90% from renewable
resources. Using my extensive background in physics and economics,
I have calculated that this will reduce electricity consumption by close to
90%, a huge savings in energy.
4) Re-institute a national speed limit, set to 35 mph. After our country’s
previous success with speed limit reductions to 55 mph, a lower limit should
be even more attractive to the public. (The 35 mph limit should be more
than enough, anyway, since most ground transportation will be by bicycle.)
5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon
dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by
joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem.
This will have an additional, rejuvenating psychological advantage for the
overwhelming majority of us who do not jog, resulting in an immediate
jump in productivity and thus GDP.
6) All roads and buildings in cities will be required to be painted white. This
will eliminate the urban heat island effect, which is clearly out of control.
Of course, for the good of the country, some people will necessarily be exempt from these new restrictions. Policymakers, scientists, and policymaking scientists, owing to their irreplaceable roles in society, will be the only three groups allowed to travel at any speed and consume any amount of fuel. As a result, “HOV” lanes will be redesignated “PS” lanes. Air travel will also be restricted to only these three groups.
These changes will be difficult at first, but as has been stated repeatedly by scientists and politicians alike, Global Warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism, nuclear proliferation, celebrity trials, and editorial bad humor, combined. It is time to put petty partisan politics aside, and unite for the common good of humanity.
I call on the Senate to adopt Spencer-Spencer as part of the energy bill.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=062005G
He is just a paid hack for the repug energy industry with out real serious concerns…give it up…
May 27th, 2006 at 12:52 pmHe is just a paid hack for the repug energy industry with out real serious concerns…give it up…
Comment by Clif — May 27, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
A growing trend - they pull these pseudo-scientists from Creation Institutional Colleges that exist solely to debunk real science in the name of religious mythologies from the Bible (Noah’s Flood for instance), which conveniently align with most of the Republican Party’s greedy little plans to accumulate unnecessary wealth. The paper their diplomas are printed upon is worthless. They know very little about anything reality based, especially science.
Some of the funniest stuff I have ever read is a series of debates these pseudo-scientists have had with real scientists. Usually on Public Radio Stations or before a zealous audience who later asks crazy questions about Atheism instead of science.
For a good laugh: http://www.atheists.org/evolution/morrisdebate.html
May 28th, 2006 at 11:51 amSome of the funniest stuff I have ever heard is this debate between a fake scientist, like TP judd, with a real scientists. You should have heard the whole thing. He was losing the debate so he reached into his bag of tricks and played the Exxon card. How is that relevant to Ballings factual evidence?
May 28th, 2006 at 5:12 pmminnie-mind is that like posting EIGHT year old scientific debate as the latest and best?
May 28th, 2006 at 7:21 pmHow is that relevant to Ballings factual evidence?
Balling’s “factual evidence” apparently does not sufficiently pass muster to get published in scientific journals.
Here’s an interesting article on climate skeptics in the latest Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2006/ 05/ 23/ AR2006052301305_pf.html
May 28th, 2006 at 8:21 pm[…] Why the GOP has the urgent need to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge is beyond me. There may be oil there, there may not. Even if oil is found, many estimations say that it will do little to alleviate the growing demand for the black gold. Read more here: USATODAY.com - Alaska the ‘poster state’ for climate concerns […]
May 30th, 2006 at 7:08 am[…] Evidence: ThinkProgress has devoted a great deal of time to debunking the attempted debunking of the movie here, here, here, here and here. […]
May 31st, 2006 at 10:56 pmTweaking Science for Consensus…
The National Academy of Sciences has just released a report concluding that the “hockey stick” graph that has been relied upon by the global warming alarmists cannot be relied upon. The media and the liberal blogs suppress this news and spin it for o…
June 22nd, 2006 at 4:00 pmHi everyone,
My opinion on global warming hasn’t changed much in the last ten years. And apparently, it is basically the same opinion as this MIT scientist, Richard Lindzen. And these scientists. Basically my opinion is that, yes, global warming is a real threat. A consideration. And humans could only do well by reducing emissions and reducing waste in all forms. The effects of greenhouse gases is well understood. Especially from observing planets such as Venus. The purpose of the atmosphere and the ozone layer is also well understood. It also known that the earth’s temperature has risen slightly since we’ve started measuring temperature in the 1800s. However, whether or not us humans are really the cause for global warming, I am a little skeptical.
Basically because I like to believe that mother earth is a large, strong, living planet. Rather than a fragile, weak, and susceptible planet. We humans are a fraction of this living planet. Bacteria and algae accounting for the majority of environmental influence. They’re everywhere. Hence the term living planet. An increase in greenhouse gases produced by these creatures would have a much larger and deleterious effect on the planet than anything we could do. (Exception: Hydrogen bombs, lots of them).
But these carbon-dioxide creating creatures are regulated. Are regulated by other creatures in our ecosystem. Are regulated by a scarcity of resources. For instance, if carbon dioxide is created by one creature another creature will rise in population to consume the extra carbon dioxide. And thereby a balance is reached on this planet. These tipping points have been being reached and balancing out for the last 4.5 billion years. The scales at which these chemicals are created and at which the organisms operate is really beyond us. We have assimilated into their world. Not vice versa.
These are some of the factors that have contributed to global climate changes for the last 4.5 billion years. Besides polarity shifts, volcanoes, earthquakes, and asteroids of course. We humans are just that not significant. Like this guy said:
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: “This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential.”
Anyways this has always been my original gut opinion. I am not a scientist and I am not a fanatic. I have not researched all that there is to know about global warming. It is basically an opinion that reflects my understanding of this planet its geology and its ecosystems. An understanding that I have nurtured through a general interest in science throughout my life. I do not deny that human behavior in the last 150 years is artificial and different than any time in the Earth’s past. And we should definitely be conscious of these things if not for the earth’s sake then at least for our sake. Because really we are the fragile ones. We are the complex organisms that depend on a myriad of conditions every day for our survival. We should acknowledge our actions because of what we know about chaos theory and the butterfly effect. Which tells us that one minor action under the right circumstances can multiply out to have humongous results. So maybe we are the cause of this .5 celsius rise in temperature, but who’s to say really, I remain skeptical.
What we should not do is get carried away. What we should not do is underestimate our great planet. We should try not to be frantic or create drama. We should simply try to understand our planet and understand ourselves. We should conserve and care for our planet for real genuine reasons not just for selfish theories about our survival of our cities and global destruction.
The debates about global warming and environmental concerns involve a lot of great people. Loving, caring, intellectual people. But I believe, to a certain extent, it is also being backed by larger firms, corporations, and politicians. Like Al Gore. Who bring up global warming debates simply not necessarily because they care so much but simply cause they want your vote. They want power. They are the ones who have to spark a fear so that they may dominate. I think this is definitely a factor. I guess you would call this the liberal agenda. That’s Hollywood, that’s newspapers, that’s politicians. Hey, I’m not biased against liberals, God knows conservatives have their own agendas too which are equally bad. Probably worse. I like to believe I’m just stating the facts, calling it like I see it. Understanding us humans and this planet for what it is, from what I conclude, not from what someone else has concluded for me.
Steve S
December 19th, 2006 at 1:23 pmThis “RealClimate.org” that this author loves so much is nothing more than a friggin Wikipedia for anyone to spout whatever they want. Real reliable source of info!!! Good work, Sherlock.
January 3rd, 2007 at 3:20 pmHas anyone read this article?
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
January 26th, 2007 at 9:28 pma few skeptical questions:
We all agree there is and has been global warming for at least 12,000 years–
January 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pmat 3 parts per 10,000, how could carbon dioixde be causing increased global warming. Glaciers have been receeding for 12,000 years–and will continue no matter what we do–why is this not admitted in discussions–
Veronica
I just wanted to write to say that you have a great site and a wonderful resource for all to share.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:50 pmEric
Nice work..
March 18th, 2008 at 9:58 am