9 Comments Add your own

• 1. Orlando Clay  |  December 15th, 2008 at 9:53 pm

  There’s still a few scattered psycho cases here in the Orlando area who are convinced that President-elect Obama is the Antichrist and that we should be preparing for the Rapture. I prefer to think of Obama as the Anti-Bush. January 20 can’t get here soon enough.

• 2. snuss  |  December 16th, 2008 at 8:43 am

  Cold Facts on Global Warming
  By James Schlesinger
  January 22, 2004 in print edition B-17

  We live in an age where facts and logic have a hard time competing with rhetoric – especially when the rhetoric is political alarmism over global warming.

  We continue to hear that “the science is settled” in the global warming debate, that we know enough to take significant action to counter it. Those who hold this view believe emissions of carbon dioxide are the primary cause of any change in global temperature and inevitably will lead to serious environmental harm in the decades ahead.

  In 1997, for instance, Vice President Al Gore played a leading role in the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to deal with the fears about global warming. He was willing to embrace severe reductions in U.S. emissions, even though the Clinton administration’s own Department of Energy estimated that Kyoto-like restrictions could cost $300 billion annually. Then, when it became clear that the Senate would not agree to a treaty that would harm the economy and exempt developing countries like China and India, the Clinton administration did not forward it for ratification. Since then, the treaty’s flaws have become more evident, and too few countries have ratified it to allow it to “enter into force.”

  The Bush administration, as an alternative to such energy-suppressing measures, has focused on filling gaps in our state of knowledge, promoting the development of new technology, encouraging voluntary programs and working with other nations on controlling the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Collectively, these actions involve spending more than $4 billion annually, and the U.S. is doing more than any other nation to address the climate-change issue.

  Of these efforts, filling the gaps in our knowledge may be the most important. What we know for sure is quite limited. For example, we know that since the early 1900s, the Earth’s surface temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit. We also know that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has been increasing in the atmosphere. And we know that the theory that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will lead to further warming is at least an oversimplification. It is inconsistent with the fact that satellite measurements over 35 years show no significant warming in the lower atmosphere, which is an essential part of the global-warming theory.

  Much of the warming in the 20th century happened from 1900 to 1940. That warming was followed by atmospheric cooling from 1940 to around 1975. During that period, frost damaged crops in the Midwest during summer months, and glaciers in Europe advanced. This happened despite the rise in greenhouse gases. These facts, too, are not in dispute.

  And that’s just our recent past. Taking a longer view of climate history deepens our perspective. For example, during what’s known as the Climatic Optimum of the early Middle Ages, the Earth’s temperatures were 1 to 2 degrees warmer than they are today. That period was succeeded by the Little Ice Age, which lasted until the early 19th century. Neither of these climate periods had anything to do with man-made greenhouse gases.

  The lessons of our recent history and of this longer history are clear: It is not possible to know now how much of the warming over the last 100 or so years was caused by human activities and how much was because of natural forces. Acknowledging that we know too little about a system as complicated as the planet’s climate is not a sign of neglect by policymakers or the scientific community. Indeed, admitting that there is much we do not know is the first step to greater understanding.

  Meanwhile, it is important that we not be unduly influenced by political rhetoric and scare tactics. Wise policy involves a continued emphasis on science, technology, engagement of the business community on voluntary programs and balancing actions with knowledge and economic priorities. As a nation, by focusing on these priorities, we show leadership and concern about the well-being of this generation and the ones to follow.

  James Schlesinger was secretary of Energy for President Carter, secretary of Defense for presidents Nixon and Ford and director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He is a senior advisor for the investment banking firm Lehman Bros. and sits on the boards of various energy and defense companies.

• 3. Mike Carroll  |  December 16th, 2008 at 9:22 am

  snuss-I admire your perseverance but you must realize that you are tilting at windmills with the Applesauce “the sky is falling” crowd.

• 4. mjstef  |  December 16th, 2008 at 9:37 am

  Currently we are experiencing a new and particularly virulent form of global warming known as “arctic re-thermalization” here in Montana. Unlike traditional global warming, this new strain involves severe Global_warming cold, heavy amounts of snowfall, and carries with it the threat of frostbite.

  The discovery of this second type of global warming has caused even the most fervent of doubters to reevaluate their beliefs.

  “To be perfectly honest, I always thought Al Gore was crazier than a syphilitic badger,” said Saranac Lake resident Jon Weaver. “Turns out that he was on to something after all. After a few hours of shoveling my house out from the effects of this new strain, I had to have four toes and a finger amputated. Damn you global warming!”

  Experts say that recent increases in people slipping and falling, and a spike in car crashes can both be directly linked to arctic re-thermalization.

• 5. Milton Waddams  |  December 16th, 2008 at 10:37 am

  I read some of the comments on that blog and this one was great…

  Why would you want science when we’re sitting on the world’s largest supply of Jesus magic?

  Classic.

• 6. bannernews  |  December 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm

  Schlesinger.

  Now there’s a resume for you. The Carter and Nixon administrations Was he one of the few who didn’t end up in jail? Then Lehman Bros. Let me guess the energy companies he works for are Oil Energy.

  Ok I,m not worried now.

• 7. snuss  |  December 16th, 2008 at 4:00 pm

  Let’s toss in a few more expert opinions……

  Lawrence Solomon, a longtime environmental activist, began wondering a few years ago how it could be that some scientists were questioning the apparently solid consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. He began seeking them out, and interviewing them on the topic.

  Before long, Solomon came to realize a substantial number of the world’s leading scientists are making a very strong case that humans are not causing any sort of global warming crisis.

  In 2006 he began publishing his interviews with these leading scientists in Canada’s National Post newspaper. In his outstanding new book, The Deniers, Solomon presents the best of these interviews, while sharing additional insights for which his newspaper columns did not have room. Solomon’s book breaks new ground in the global warming discussion, presenting the most important scientific evidence in the words of the scientists themselves.

  The Deniers is not just a series of interviews and vignettes, however. Solomon carefully divides the information gleaned from his prestigious dissenters into chapters asking the very questions most of us have on our minds, and he allows the scientists’ own words to answer the questions collectively.

  Scientists Persecuted

  All of the “dissenters” profiled in the book are recognized leaders in their fields, with many even active in the official body that oversees most of the world’s climate change research, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus the book provides absorbing insight into both the scientific issues and the ferocious political and media battles being waged about global warming.

  Solomon shows how noble scientists have suffered for their integrity and how attack dogs have mounted an all-out campaign against these scientists, portraying them as hacks bought by profit-mad oil companies or as non-credentialed cranks and lunatics.

  Elite Scientific Resumes

  The book offers well-written brief biographies of each of their illustrious careers. Here is a sample of the dozens of scientists the author interviewed, with a very condensed indication of who they are and what they believe:

  Claude Allegre, Ph.D.

  A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, Allegre was among the first scientists to sound the alarm on potential dangers from global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

  Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.

  A professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Lindzen says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

  Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D.

  Head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkova Observatory and head of the International Space Station’s Astrometria Project, Abdussamatov reports, “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

  Richard Toi, Ph.D.

  Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit and adjunct professor at the Carnegie Mellon University Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Toi calls the IPCC reports “preposterous … alarmist and incompetent.”

  Sami Solanki, Ph.D.

  Director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Solanki argues changes in the sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming. Says Solanki, “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

  Freeman Dyson, Ph.D.

  A professor at Princeton University and one of the most eminent physicists in the world, Dyson reports the models used to justify global warming are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

  Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D.

  Director of the Danish National Space Center and vice president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Friis-Christensen argues changes in the sun’s behavior could very well account for most of the warming during the past century.

  Necessary Second Opinion

  Global warming has become a critical question for citizens who must decide whether the cures being bandied about are not in fact worse than the disease.

  In matters of health, most intelligent citizens seek a second opinion before undergoing a serious medical procedure, but in the case of global warming, a second opinion is exactly what global warming activists do not want you to seek, for fear it will reduce the effectiveness of their fear-mongering. Therefore, we are treated to a continuous drumbeat of the words, “the science is settled.”

  All the scientists Solomon interviews in his book are prominent in climate science and are not just nitpicking over the interpretation of some small piece of data. Throughout the book Solomon artistically includes boxes of highlighted quotes from his subjects, taken from their own publications. Here is one from Lindzen:

  “How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism.

  “Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes.”

  Worthless Computer Models

  In his interview, Dyson points out from long experience that models packed with numerous “fudge factors” are worthless.

  As a mathematician and physicist, Dyson is known for the unification of three versions of quantum electrodynamics, as well as for contributions to space flight and the development of a safe nuclear reactor used today by hospitals and universities around the world. But today he is known more widely as a scientific heretic for disagreeing with claims of a central human role in global warming.

  In his 2005 winter commencement address at the University of Michigan, Dyson said the mathematical computer models on which the alarmist claims are based “do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”

  Solar Influence Ignored

  In Solomon’s interview with Friis-Christensen, the scientist states he was originally optimistic about the work IPCC would do in studying the sun’s influence on climate change. To his surprise, however, IPCC refused to consider the sun’s effect on the Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.

  That is a huge omission, Abdussamatov points out. He notes there has been global warming on other planets and moons in the solar system, and this demonstrates other forces may be at work regarding the Earth’s moderate recent warming. “Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians,” he observes.

  Abdussamatov, at the pinnacle of Russia’s scientific establishment, is one of the world’s most eminent critics of the notion carbon dioxide is driving global warming. He argues these “parallel global-warmings observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth–can only be a straight line consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.”

  Cooling Coming Soon

  Abdussamatov believes the recent global warming will be short-lived and that we are actually on the brink of a global cooling, and likely a severe one. He argues Earth has hit its temperature ceiling, demonstrated by cooling currently occurring in the upper layers of the world’s oceans.

  In addition, Abddussamatov notes, solar irradiance has begun to fall, likely ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012-2015.

  The lowest depth of the solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2041 (plus or minus 11 years), Abdussamatov estimates, and will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60. The freeze will last into the twenty-second century before temperatures rise again. For now, he says, “we continue to bask in the remains of heat that the planet accumulated over the twentieth century.”

  This is an excellent book. It is written for non-scientists, and I guarantee you will understand every word. It will inspire you as you witness the courage of the deniers to take a stand and endure the wrath of global warming activists for having the audacity to report sound science.

  Source: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23701

  Well, that should cause you of the Environmental Left crowd to foam at the mouth.

  Also see: http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23062

  http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23004

  http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22790

• 8. Pat Cunningham  |  December 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

  Snuss: Three things:

  1) I’ve read novels that were shorter than your two nosebleeds here.

  2) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the global temperature increases over the past 50 years are “very likely” due to concentrations of greenhouse gases. The IPCC’s report has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science. Some individual scientists disagree with the IPCC’s findings, but the vast majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the panel’s report.

  3) You can test yourself on researching ability by the following process: First, carefully re-read the three sentences in the paragraph just above this one. Second, ask yourself whether each of those sentences is entirely true. Third, consider yourself an inadequate researcher if you answered that question in the negative.

  All three of the sentences in that paragraph are demonstrably true. None of those sentences deals directly with which side in the global-warming arguments is wrong or right. The paragraph merely mentions the IPCC report and the facts that most climate scientists agree with the IPPC while some scientists don’t.

  Now, for your homework, you should check out what others say about the opinions of some of the scientists you quoted in your comment. Take Freeman Dyson, for instance. Here’s a piece about him (and don’t miss the comments at the bottom of the article):

  http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html

• 9. Mike Carroll  |  December 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm

  Pat-I will paraphrase a comment you once made about religion. As an agnostic you said that you did not know whether or not God existed but neither did those who professed religious beliefs.
  The same can be said for the Global Warming debate. You, and your fellow progressives, are certain that the globe is warming and human activity is to blame. You get there by faith in the Opinion of a number of scientists but you can’t know because it can not yet be proven. That’s why they call it a theory.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed